Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6172 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Birger Hjørland, (1998),"Theory and metatheory of information science: a new interpretation", Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 54 Iss 5 pp. 606-621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007183
Lyn Robinson, (2009),"Information science: communication chain and domain analysis", Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 65 Iss 4 pp. 578-591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410910970267
Birger Hjørland, (2005),"Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science", Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 61 Iss 1 pp. 130-155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578050
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478531 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
JDOC
58,4 Domain analysis in
information science
Eleven approaches ± traditional as well
422 as innovative
Received 10 October 2001
Revised 11 February 2002
Birger Hjùrland
Accepted 14 March 2002 Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark
Keywords Information technology, Knowledge workers, Documentation
Abstract What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific
subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information
science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to
domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways; producing
special classifications and thesauri; research on indexing and retrieving specialities; empirical
user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies;
epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special
purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication;
and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and
selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these
approaches are discussed.
gateways'', etc. They are publications that list and describe the system of
information resources in one or more areas. Bottle (1997, p. 213) writes:
``Probably the first distinct information science literature type was the
literature guide. An early example was Ostwald's Die chemische Literatur und
die Organisation der Wissenschaft (Leipzig, 1919)''.
A guide is a kind of bibliography of documents in a domain, but it deviates
from typical subject bibliographies. First, a guide concentrates on reference
literature (bibliographies, dictionaries, encyclopaedias etc.) at the expense of
primary literature. Second, a guide is typically selective (more or less so), while,
for example, a bibliography of bibliographies tends to be comprehensive. There
are of course many variations or sub-types of guides as of any other kind of
literature. Guides can include more or less text in addition to the
bibliographical entries (which should be annotated). Ideally, a guide guides the
user in the management of the literature. It informs him about the strengths
and weaknesses of different works, and it should provide the basis for a
rational section of works to use and help the user to navigate in the ocean of
literature, databases and information. It can be seen as a kind of interface
between the user and the literature, and it can be seen as a kind of textbook for
courses in literature searching or as a self-help book for library and information
use. One could also say that a guide is an explication of what librarians do
when they build collections and learn to use them in order to provide reference
services.
The American Library Association as well as Library Association in London
has for many years published Guide to Reference Books (Balay et al., 1996) and
Walford's Guide to Reference Material (Day and Walsh, 2000) respectively.
These are very comprehensive guides covering all subject areas and are
considered valuable and classic sources in the library community. Examples of
guides in the social sciences include Hoselitz (1970), Li (2000), Roberts (1977)
and Webb (1986). The last mentioned is ambitious and worth mentioning for
several reasons. Being published by American Library Association it
JDOC demonstrates an important initiative from the LIS community in relation to
58,4 serving specific domains. It includes descriptions of the information system in
the social sciences and approaches to the social sciences supporting some of the
different approaches to information studies suggested in the present article.
Unfortunately, however, it has not been updated since 1986. If IS should have a
real impact such works need to, in my opinion, be continuously updated and
424 also followed by educational initiatives.
The producing of such guides is part of the discipline known as special or
subject bibliography (see e.g. Hale, 1970). This is a subdiscipline in LIS which
has declined considerably, and it is unfortunately hardly visible today. We
need research of, for example, the history of information guides, their form and
functions in general as well as in different areas of knowledge and the
development of adequate technologies and integration with other products
such as OPACs.
Among the few studies in this field are A Survey of Subject Guides to Sources
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
analysis, in particular:
. producing special classifications;
. document and genre studies;
. epistemological and critical studies; and
. studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication.
The answer to the problem raised is, in my opinion, that we change our
scientific concepts as our theoretical knowledge develops. Whales were once
classified as fish but are today classified as mammals. Science penetrates from Domain analysis
the surface of things to more essential qualities. Classifications are thus closely in information
connected to scientific theories. Courses and research in bibliographical science
classification tend, unfortunately, to ignore such literature about scientific
classification. An exception is found at the homepage of Professor Michael
Buckland (1998), where texts on biological classification are included as course
material. 427
The neglect of scientific classification is also reflected in the scarce contact
between subject specialists and classification researchers in LIS. One example
is that classification schemes and thesauri seldom are reviewed in journals
from the domains they cover. Another example is that when subject specialists
get jobs in schools of library and information science, they often express
sceptical views on how their fields of knowledge are treated in universal
classification systems. Thus, during his employment at the Royal School of
Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, the anthropologist Jan Ovesen
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
As already mentioned classification research in LIS has not only ignored the
principles of classification for the objects of different disciplines but also the
principles and methodologies for constructing bibliographical systems
developed in many kinds of databases, reference literature and special libraries.
JDOC LIS has so far not been able to make itself visible in a broader context. There
58,4 are, however, some relevant contributions on which we can build.
The pioneering works about classification of subject domains in LIS are
related to the facet analytic tradition of Ranganathan. Examples of
methodologies described in the literature include Mills (1957), Mills and
Broughton (1977), and Vickery (1960). The Bliss Bibliographical Classification
428 (2nd ed.) represents a major effort and an impressive methodology for
classifying different subject fields.
As an approach to the classification of a subject field the facet analytic
tradition has been almost totally dominating in LIS. Hjùrland (1998a) sees this
approach as related to rationalist philosophy and as containing the same
strengths and limitations as this philosophy. It has not much to say about the
empirical basis for classification. In this respect methods such as bibliometrics
are much stronger. It has not much to say either about historical, pragmatic
and critical methods. According to Hjùrland (2000) knowledge about, for
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
social sciences on the other, which is also very relevant. Among the few other
relevant contributions are Bates (1987, 1998), Hjùrland (1988), Walker (1990)
and Wiberly (1983).
In the subject databases thousands of documents are indexed each month.
This indexing is open to study by different methods. A proper theory or
approach to document representation and retrieval should relate to this
publicly available material. Research on indexing, document representation
and retrieval should be able to evaluate bad practices and improve them. If this
is not done, it becomes difficult to argue for further research in this area. Too
often library and information specialists feel they lack adequate subject
knowledge. In order to claim the existence of the field as a serious field of study
one has, however, to develop sufficient subject knowledge in at least one field
(e.g. LIS itself). The application of LIS principles to a specific task may make
research in information science more relevant and realistic.
There is more research on domain specific retrieval and indexing than has
been mentioned here. Especially in the fields of biology, chemistry, geography,
medicine and law. Much of this research activity seems unfortunately to live its
own life and to be rather isolated from mainstream journals of information
science. For example, there are more than 4,000 hits on Geographic
(w)information(w)system? in SCI & SSCI. There are 692 hits in International
Journal of Geographic Information Science alone, but only seven records in five
leading journals in IS: Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
Journal of Documentation, Information Processing & Management, Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology and Journal of Information
Science together!
Only a few schools of LIS offer advanced degrees in specialized information
science, among them Sheffield, UK, which among other programs has one in
Chemoinformatics. There seems to be an obvious need to strengthen such
initiatives on a broader front.
JDOC Conclusion: indexing and retrieving information is always specific. Main
58,4 stream IS has, however, largely ignored the way different domains may put
different demands on systems for organising and retrieving documents. A
stronger focus on different domains may make our field more realistic and our
masters more relevant in different environments. Such research might benefit
by co-operating with, among others:
430 . producing special classifications and thesauri;
. bibliometrical studies;
. epistemological and critical studies; and
. terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse
studies.
user surveys etc. in the literature of LIS, going back at least to a study by
Bernal (1948). In contrast to the production of literature guides and special
classifications, user studies have an air of being proper research, which,
however, only seldom corresponds with reality.
From a domain analytic point of view the studies by the American
Psychological Association (1963-1969, 1969-1971) and Garvey and Griffith
(1967, 1971, 1972) stand out as comprehensive empirical studies of user
behaviour. Among Belver C. Griffith's many contributions to disciplinary
communication is the idea that science and scholarship at large constitute a
social system to be investigated empirically. These studies had the explicit goal
of using this knowledge as the basis for constructing principles for designing a
national information system for psychology. They were started in an optimistic
atmosphere and it was expected that the entrance of behavioural scientists in
this field would start a new field in applied psychology (scientific
communication and related terms were, for example, added as descriptors in
the PsycINFO database). The Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology published during many years regularly reviews chapters on
``information needs and use'' studies. Brittain (1970) was one of a long range of
reviews of user studies with special reference to the social sciences.
One general conclusion from this research is the disappointing fact that
scientists are not using formal information services as much as the providers of
those services could wish. Instead, they depend very much on informal
communication. There also seems to be a tendency to prefer physical
availability of information sources even at the cost of quality. The studies also
contributed by describing scientific communication in a systems perspective,
providing empirical data about the use of various elements in the system as
well as the time-factors associated with different kinds of primary, secondary
and tertiary information services.
In spite of such results, it is my feeling that there has always been something
fundamentally problematic with the research tradition of user studies
considered as a whole. Much of the scepticism about user studies is related to Domain analysis
the lack of adequate theories guiding this research. It has explicitly been in information
formulated that such theory would appear when enough empirical data had science
been collected, which is a naive form of inductionism. The dominant traditions
in both information science and in behavioural and cognitive sciences have
neglected culturally mediating factors in people's relationship with information
and just tried to study generalized persons' relation to something termed 431
``information''. In these traditions people are expected to react to something in a
specific, mechanical way without considering the culturally determined
meanings and without considering the different goals and values of the
meanings and of the documents.
Empirical user studies have also often built on the assumption that we as
information specialists can learn what we need to know about information from
users. However, information specialists should be the experts in information
organisation and searching, we cannot expect to learn our profession by
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
This implies that they do not know what documents to search, and when they
have found the needed information, they may be unable to recognise this.
Therefore, information scientists cannot expect to learn how to organise and
search information by studying or asking users. On the contrary: any
interpretation of users' behaviour must presuppose some a priory principles in
IS.
A radical critique of a somewhat different nature is posed by Professor Vesa
Suominen (2001), who writes:
Without denying the value of focusing on the user during the last decennia of twentieth
century, I would argue against the self-evident, ideological position of ``userism'' [read:
consumerism] within the discipline . . . On the level of the themes of the present paper I can in
a bit rough manner sum up this criticism of ``userism'' as follows. We must not only consider a
library:
. in terms of users' (citizens') interests and ``rights'' to receive information, but also;
. in terms of society's and culture's interests and ``rights'' to have their members informed,
to not forget quite legitimate interests of a state, for instance, and yet;
. authors' interests and ``rights'' to inform, this last coming quite close to the ideals of the
freedom of expression.
The feeling of uneasiness about user studies is supported by Wilson (1994) who
made a review of 50 years of research on user studies and questioned the value
of most of it. Wilson himself, as well as other researchers, developed a new
approach to user studies in which context and task is taken more into account.
JDOC The series of conferences named International Conference on Research in
58,4 Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts represents this new
trend in user studies. In reality, however, the bulk of produced research can
hardly be characterized as domain analytic, and, in my opinion, it still has
problems with its theoretical assumptions. An influential researcher is
communication researcher Brenda Dervin, who has developed the sense
432 making approach, which is actually the most cited approach about user studies
in IS. In Dervin (1999) the relation between methods, methodology and
metatheory is described. I find the views expressed here important, e.g. that
users are regarded as theorists as well as the emphasis which is put on
hermeneutics. I have also argued (Hjùrland, 1998b) that epistemological
theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about
users, their cognition and information-seeking behaviour. In spite of this
agreement, however, other contributions to be presented below seem for me to
match better what is needed from a domain analytic point of view.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Bates (1987) has pointed out that information itself has been neglected as a
variable in user studies. This is in my opinion an important observation that
has not got as much attention as it deserves. The most useful recent studies I
know of are produced by the Danish sociologist, Heine Andersen. He has
published a series of empirical studies on Danish social scientists that I find
highly valuable. Andersen (2000), for example, provides us with valuable
information about the relative consensus of social scientists regarding the most
highly esteemed researchers and scientific journals in their field of expertise.
These data provide insight into the difference between a Danish survey and the
journal impact factor (JIF). They also provide insight into how social sciences
differ from each other in this respect. What makes these studies relevant is that
they consider domains as well as traditions as important factors in information
behaviour. The studies are also directly applicable to practical issues in LIS,
e.g. concerning the selection of information sources.
Conclusion: empirical studies of users may represent an important approach
to domain analysis in IS if they are informed by proper theory. They may, for
example, provide information about differences in information needs in
different communities. They should be combined with other approaches,
including:
. bibliometrical studies;
. epistemological and critical studies; and
. studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication.
Bibliometrical studies
Bibliometrics is an exciting area of study although its use as an instrument in
research evaluation is much disputed. It can be used as a tool and method in
domain analysis in several ways. It has, for example, become popular to make
bibliometric maps or visualizations of scientific areas based on co-citation
analysis. A well-known example is that of White and McCain (1998), who
explicitly refer to their approach as domain analysis and acknowledge Hjùrland Domain analysis
and Albrechtsen (1995). Some examples of Garfield's pioneering research in the in information
area of bibliometric analysis of domains are given in Garfield (1976, 1979, science
1992). Bibliometrics is a strong approach because it shows many detailed and
real connections between individual documents. These links represent the
authors' explicit acknowledgment of dependency between, for example, papers,
researchers, fields, approaches and geographical regions. 433
In Figure 1 shows an example from library and information science
produced by Persson (2000, 2001). In order to understand the strengths and
limitations of bibliometrics, it is important to consider what factors influence
the outcome of such a map in a systematic fashion.
First, the databases available and the selection of journals and other
documents that form the empirical basis for producing the map are very
important. Given databases are always limited, and the kind of limitation
cannot be regarded as neutral. The citation databases produced by Institute for
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Figure 1.
Influential authors in
library and information
science 1986-1996
JDOC Scientific Information in Philadelphia have, for example, a very low coverage of
58,4 monographs, and monographs have not the same bibliometrical distribution as
journals (cf. Cronin et al., 1997). When journals are selected to represent a
discipline or a domain, the actual selection reveals implicit definitions about the
discipline. A discipline has always many subfields and connections to other
fields, and any selection favours some subfields at the expense of others.
434 Speaking about LIS, how are journals related to classification research, human-
computer interaction, library history and many other fields represented? How
is the decision reached about what journals to include in the database or in the
specific study? (If journals are included on the basis of their JIF we have a
problematic circular argumentation.) In LIS Gerald Salton is presently among
the most cited authors. One could, however, argue that he is a researcher from
computer science and not from LIS. All this implies that one's view on this
issue depends on the theoretical view of LIS, which influences which journals
are selected, which again influences which authors are most visible on such
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
languages, they use difficult mathematics, they are using a different theoretical
perspective etc. The case of the Danish statistician, Rasch (1960), is illustrative.
His main work was published in 1960. Very slowly (but steadily), his influence
has been growing. This suggests that the delay in using his methods is simply
the result of a lack of statistical knowledge within great international areas of
the social sciences. In LIS there may be a corresponding tendency to overcite
easy theories and methods at the expense of more difficult but also more
important papers. For example, in relevance research a tendency to blur
subjective and objective conceptions of relevance can be mentioned. To the
degree that this third argument is true, it paints a rather pessimistic picture of
the quality of much published research. Nonetheless, I expect this to be a
realistic picture, and this consideration, of course, influences the interpretations
of bibliometric studies.
Fourth, independent of convenience, some theories or authors may at any
given time in any given location and discipline be more popular or ``in''
compared to other theories or authors. Concepts such as Zeitgeist, trends and
ideologies describe this phenomenon. Today a person like Pierre Bourdieu
seems to be very popular not just in sociology, but also in educational studies,
library and information studies, psychology and many other fields. Such a
tendency is often self-perpetuating. It is, of course, difficult to tell when the use
of an author or a theory just represents a fad, an ideological movement, and
when it represents real scientific progress. Some people would perhaps say that
there is no difference between ``scientific progress'' and ``changing paradigms''.
This is a deep philosophical problem, which will not be discussed further here
(I expect the answer to be different in different domains). At this point it must
be sufficient to say that such epistemological theories are very relevant to the
interpretation of bibliometric maps provided that they are based on serious
arguments. Such arguments can be qualified by other kinds of methods than
the bibliometrical ones, for example by historical and epistemological
methods[2].
JDOC Conclusion: bibliometrics is a strong approach to domain analysis because it
58,4 is empirical and based on detailed analysis of connections between individual
documents. One needs, however, to consider different kinds of possible bias
very carefully. Besides, in order to interpret bibliometric analyses properly, one
needs some knowledge of other kinds too, including:
. historical studies; and
436 . epistemological and critical studies.
Historical studies
Historical methods and studies have not been much utilized in information
science (or LIS) if we disregard historical studies of information science and
libraries. Historical studies are, however, relevant in a much broader and
deeper way. One of the great pioneers of bibliometrical studies, Derek J. de Solla
Price (1922-1983), was also a historian of science. His research often gained
more perspective compared to many other bibliometricans because of this fact.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
If one is going to study, for example, the classification of social sciences (or
just to evaluate how they are classified in given systems such as the Dewey
Decimal Classification) one needs some background information of a historical
nature like, for example, that provided by Wallerstein et al. (1996; summarised
in Hjùrland, 2000). For a deeper understanding of a field like psychology, I find
the works of Danziger (e.g. 1990, 1997) indispensable. Such knowledge is
mandatory as background knowledge for classifying psychology (see Hjùrland,
1998a). Related works of a more general character are the influential books by
Foucault (e.g. 1970, 1972), which have given birth to the influential method of
discourse analysis.
While the history of science in general is too broad to be considered part of
IS, one could make a distinction between ordinary historical studies of subject
domains on the one hand and historical studies emphasising the development
of terminology, categories, literatures, genres, communication systems etc. on
the other. The last mentioned part should be seen as approaches to domain
analysis in IS. The ASIS Conferences on History of Information Systems
represent an important example of this approach. The first conference in this
series took place in 1998 (see Bowden et al., 1998).
Conclusion: one should not only regard historical studies as a way to
celebrate a field and give it a higher status. Historical methods should be
regarded as substantial methods in IS. When it comes to understanding
documents, organisations, systems, knowledge and information, a historical
perspective and historical methods are often able to provide a much deeper and
more coherent and ecological perspective compared to non-historical kinds of
research of a mechanist nature.
fundamental to communication of knowledge. In that lies the importance and urgency of the
work on that view (Saracevic, 1975, p. 333, emphases in original).
(1) empirism/positivism;
(2) rationalism;
(3) historism/hermeneutics/phenomenology;
(4) pragmatism/functionalism/Marxism/feminism;
(5) eclecticism, postmodernism and scepticism.
These positions are generalisations of existing epistemologies, and they
represent ideal types which do not exist in pure form. They form the most
general level of the description of framework theories and thus the most
general level of explaining relevance and information behaviour. If IS should be
taken seriously, it should be able to explain information phenomena, and for
this purpose epistemological studies are important.
Conclusion: epistemological and critical studies of knowledge domains
provide knowledge about the foundations of the domains and critical
evaluations of their knowledge claims. They provide guidelines for
selection, organisation and retrieval of information and provide the highest
level of generality about information needs and relevance criteria that can
be obtained. All other approaches to domain analysis become superficial if
epistemology is neglected. For example, guides to information sources in
the social sciences should be evaluated by their ability to inform users about
different views in their respective fields. An information guide that only
contains information sources representing one paradigm without making
this clear deprives the user of making his own choices. This approach has
hitherto been much neglected, and very few books in LIS are based on
substantial philosophical knowledge. Budd (2001) is, however, one
important text, which surveys many of these problems in a qualified way. It
may be a part of an increasing awareness of the importance of epistemology
in LIS.
Terminological studies, language for special purpose (LSP), Domain analysis
database semantics and discourse studies in information
Information professionals have always had an intimate relationship with science
problems related to terminology, semantic relationships and similar problems
of a linguistic nature. Thesaurus construction, problems related to the retrieval
efficiency of controlled as well as natural language etc. are obvious examples of
this relationship. In chemistry, for example, there is a close relation between 441
works on indexing principles and works on standardization of chemical
nomenclature (American Chemical Society, 1992). It is also a natural job for
scientific and technical libraries and information centres to support and join
activities related to the development of terminology as well as the translation of
scientific documents. Thus the Technological Library of Denmark has
published bibliographies of dictionaries and similar kinds of documents of
relevance for translation (Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek, 1975, 1981).
What kind of theory can guide the information scientist in exploring the
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
(1) The sector for the No direct connection to the sphere of consumption. The
manufacturing of the language for special purpose (LSP) is therefore very different
means of production from common language
(2) The sector for the This sector is closer to the sphere of consumption where the
manufacturing of products end up (although mostly brought about by sector (3))
consumer goods in a
broad sense
(3) The sector for the To a certain degree the language for special purposes is here
distribution of consumer part of the common language (e.g. ``Fiat 128'' or the cake
goods ``goose breast''). Consumers and producers/distributors,
however, emphasize different aspects
(4) The state sector, which Even if state politics, administration of justice, finances, etc.
regulates overall social are relevant to all citizens, this sector nevertheless represents
life typical LSPs, far removed from common language (which is
seen by Ammon as a social disproportion)
Table I.
A sociolinguistic model Source: Based on Ammon (1977)
used by the people in the purchasing department, while just tongs would more Domain analysis
likely be used by the workers using it. According to Ammon all scientists share in information
a general level of scientific language (and knowledge). And highly specialized science
scientists (e.g. food chemists) have a higher need to communicate with other
chemists than to communicate internally, while their vocabulary is much
broader than their speciality.
Ammon's theory is relevant for IS because it can help explain terminological 445
problems and provide guidelines for working with thesauri and subject
terminology. There is, however, an even deeper cause. Because information
seekers need terminology, and because there is a connection between linguistic
knowledge and substantial knowledge, such a theory might help explain
problems in cross-disciplinary information seeking. It might explain which
knowledge and which terminology are not part of normal persons' repertoire. It
should, however, only be considered a first step towards a more empirically
and theoretically developed approach.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
447
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Figure 2.
Institutions, actors and
documentary structures
in a discipline
in a precise way. Who are the producers? How much do they publish and
communicate, and how is this communication distributed in different channels?
How is the communication filtered and influenced by different media? What is
the coverage both quantitatively and qualitatively in different databases and
libraries? What kind of epistemic norms guide the selection process? How
interdisciplinary are the different agents and institutions, and what kinds of
bias can be involved by disciplinary influences? What kind of national or
geographical traditions, cultural norms and economic influences are at play
(e.g. differences between for-profit and non-profit organizations)?
The study of communication both internal in domains and external between
domains may be inspired by different kinds of sociological theory, including
discourse analysis, systems theory or theory of self-organisation such as
Leydesdorff (2001). An original approach studying disciplines from an
organisational perspective is provided by Whitley (2000). He considers task
uncertainty and the degree of mutual dependence between scientists the basic
causes structuring intellectual fields. This perspective may be useful also for
IS. This last example also indicates how the study of structures and institutions
in scientific communication is related to sociological points of view.
Conclusion: the study of the structures of the internal division of labor
within domains and information exchange between domains provides useful
information for the understanding of the function of specific kinds of
documents and information services and for the construction of literature
guides. This field is rich in questions that are open to, among other kinds of
studies, bibliometrical investigations.
Conclusion
The conclusions drawn for the 11 approaches are:
(1) Literature guides organise information sources in a domain according to
types and functions served. They emphasize idiographic descriptions of
information sources and descriptions of how the sources supplement
each other, often in a kind of systems perspective.
(2) Special classifications and thesauri (especially the facet-based
approaches) organise the logical structures of categories and concepts in
a domain as well as the semantic relations between the concepts.
(3) Indexing and retrieving specialities organise single documents or
collections in order to optimise the retrivability and visibility of their
specific ``epistemological potentials''.
(4) Empirical user studies may organise domains according to preferences
or behaviour or mental models of their users.
(5) Bibliometric studies organise sociological patterns of explicit
recognition between individual documents.
(6) Historical studies organise traditions, paradigms as well as documents Domain analysis
and forms of expression and their mutual influences. in information
(7) Document and genre studies reveal the organisation and structure of science
different kinds of documents in a domain.
(8) Epistemological and critical studies organise the knowledge of a domain
in ``paradigms'' according to their basic assumptions about knowledge 451
and reality.
(9) Terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes) and
discourse studies organise words, texts and utterances in a domain
according to semantic and pragmatic criteria.
(10) Studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication
organise the major actors and institutions according to the internal
division of labour in the domain.
(11) Domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Notes
1. So for the following titles have been published: Towery (1998), History; Wyman (1999)
Medicine; and Kendrick and Zafran (2001), Law.
2. In addition to the already cited papers on interpreting bibliometric analysis the following
should also be mentioned: Aksnes et al. (2000), MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1989),
Sandison (1989), Seglen (1992, 1994, 1996a, b, 1997a, b, 1998) and Seglen and Aksnes
(2000).
3. Reiss (2000) is a handbook of IA.
4. Beghtol (2001) is a recent introduction to the genre concept in IS. Procter et al. (1998) study
genres in support of collaborative information retrieval in the virtual library. Davidson
(2000) is an example of genre analysis in a specific domain (clinical information systems).
JDOC 5. An example of the use of information structures in linguistics is Lambrecht (1996).
58,4 6. In 1995-96 was thus a rather intensive debate in American Psychologist about the
publication manual in this field, e.g. Madigan et al. (1995, 1996).
7. Biological genres have been studied by Myers (1990, 1991).
8. The few journals include Fachsprache and Nordisk tidsskrift for fagsprog og terminology/
Nordic Journal of LSP and Terminology.
452 9. Most research in this field seems to be of German origin. Hoffmann et al. (1997) have
published the major handbook in this field: Languages for Special Purposes: An
International Handbook of Special Languages and Terminology Research. Other books with
a German origin include: Albrecht and Baum (1992); Dietz (1995); Grindsted and Wagner
(1992); Gopferich (1995); von Hahn (1981); Kretzenbacher (1990); Schaeder and Bergenholtz
(1994); SchroÈder (1991); Timm (1992) and Wendt (1997).
10. See, for example, Unisist (1971, p. 26) or Garvey and Griffith (1972, p. 127). Although those
specific models need to be updated, they provide a very fruitful tool in helping to raise a
long range of empirical questions which need to be answered.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
References
Aitchison, J. (1995), ``Bliss class R: politics and public administration: a review'', The Bliss
Classification Bulletin, Vol. 37, pp. 10-23.
Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A. and Bawden, D. (2000), Thesaurus Construction and Use: A Practical
Manual, 4th ed., ASLIB, London.
Aksnes, D.W., Olsen, T.B. and Seglen, P.O. (2000), ``Validation of bibliometric indicators in the
field of microbiology: a Norwegian case study'', Scientometrics, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Albrecht, J. and Baum, R. (Eds) (1992), Fachsprache und Terminologie in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 14, G. Narr, TuÈbingen.
Allen, F.R. (1993), ``Essential business reference sources: a survey of seven bibliographic
guidebooks'', RQ, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 77-84
American Chemical Society (1992), ``Naming and indexing of chemical substances for chemical
abstracts, appendix IV'', Chemical Abstracts Index Guide, Chemical Abstracts Service,
American Chemical Society (or later editions), Columbus, OH.
Ammon, U. (1977), Indfùring i sociolingvistik, Gyldendal, Copenhagen (translated from Probleme
der Soziolinguistik, Niemeyer, TuÈbingen: (Germanistische Arbeitshefte 15)
2nd ed..)
American Psychological Association (1963-1969), Reports of the American Psychological
AssociationÂs Project on Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology, Vol. 1-3, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
American Psychological Association (1969-1971), National Information System for Psychology
(NISP), Reports No. 1-16, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
American Psychological Association (1994), Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, 4th ed., APA, Washington, DC.
Andersen, H. (1999), ``Political attitudes and cognitive convictions among Danish social science
researchers'', Scientometrics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 87-108.
Andersen, H. (2000), ``Influence and reputation in the social sciences ± how much do researchers
agree?'', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 674-92.
Andersen, P. et al. (1996), Kemisk ordbog, (Chemical Dictionary), Teknisk forlag, Copenhagen.
Anson, C. and Woodward, M. (1992), ``A survey of legal research guides'', Law Library Journal,
Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 543-57.
Askehave, I. and Swales, J.M. (2001), ``Genre identification and communicative purpose: a Domain analysis
problem and a possible solution'', Applied Linguistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-212.
in information
Balay, R., Carrington, V.F. and Martin, M.S. (Eds) (1996), Guide to Reference Books, 11th ed.,
American Library Association, Chicago, IL. science
Bates, M.J. (1987), ``Information: the last variable'', in Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of
the ASIS, 24, American Society for Information Science, Medford, NJ, pp. 6-10.
Bates, M.J. (1998), ``Indexing and access for digital libraries and the Internet: human, database, 453
and domain factors'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 49
No. 13, pp. 1185-205.
Bazerman, C. (1985), ``Physicists reading physics. Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden
schema'', Written Communication, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Bazerman, C. (1988), Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental
Article in Science, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Beghtol, C. (2001), ``The concept of genre and its characteristics'', Bulletin of The American
Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 2, available at: www.asis.org/
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Bulletin/Dec-01/Bulletin/Aug-99/index.html
Berard, E. (1992), Essays in Object-oriented Software Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Bergenholtz, H., Tarp, S. and Duva, G. (Eds) (1995), Manual of Specialised Lexicography; The
Preparation of Specialised Dictionaries, J. Benjamins (Benjamins Translation Library,
Vol. 12), Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA.
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, T.N. (1995), Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication;
Cognition, Culture, Power, L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Bernal, J.D. (1948), ``Preliminary analysis of pilot questionnaire on the use of scientific literature,
in Royal Society [Great Britain]'', The Royal Society Scientific Information Conference:
Report and Papers Submitted, 21 June-2 July, Royal Society, London, pp. 589-637.
Bertram, S. (1974), ``Library pathfinders. American Society for Information Science'', in
McBurney, M.B. (Ed.), Western Canada Chapter: Proceedings 6th Annual Meeting,
Saskatoon, 25-27 September, University of Alberta Library, Alberta, pp. 99-104.
Bland, R.N. (1990), ``Toward the catalog as a tutorial guide to the literature'', Cataloging &
Classification Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Bodenreider, O. and Bean, C.A. (2001), ``Relationships among knowledge structures: vocabulary
Integration within a subject domain (on the unified medical language system), in
Bean, C.A. and Green, R. (Eds), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Bonzi, S. (1990), ``Syntactic patterns in scientific sublanguages: a study of four disciplines'',
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 121-31.
Bottle, R.T. (1997), ``Information science'', in Feather, J. and Sturges, P. (Eds), International
Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 212-4.
Bowden, M.E., Hahn, T.B. and Williams, R.V. (Eds) (1998), Proceedings of the 1998 Conference
on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems, published for the American
Society for Information Science and Technology and the Chemical Heritage Foundation
ASIS Monograph Series, available at: www.chemheritage.org/HistoricalServices/
ASIS_documents/ASIS98_main.htm
Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999), Sorting Things out: Classification and Its Consequences, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, partly available at: weber.ucsd.edu/~gbowker/classification/
JDOC Brittain, J.M. (1970), Information and Its Users: A Review with Special Reference to the Social
Sciences, Bath University Press, Bath.
58,4
Brooks, T.A. (1995), ``Topical subject expertise and the semantic distance model of relevance
assessment'', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 370-87.
Brooks, T.A. (1998), ``The semantic distance model of relevance assessment'', Proceedings of the
61st Annual Meeting of ASIS, 25-28 October, Information Access in the Global
Information Economy, Pittsburgh, PA, Vol. 35, pp. 33-44.
454
Bryant, R. (2001), Discovery and Decision: Exploring the Methaphysics and Epistemology of
Scientific Classification, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Fairleigh, NJ.
Buckland, M. (1998), ``Homepage. Courses, Infosys 290: 1: Indexing and vocabulary, Spring 1998
Schedule'', available at: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/courses/is290-1/s98/schedule.html
(accessed 31 December 2001).
Buckland, M. (1999), ``Vocabulary as a central concept in library and information science'', in
Arpanac et al. (Eds), Digital Libraries: Interdisciplinary Concepts, Challenges, and
Opportunities, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Conceptions of
Library and Information Science CoLIS3, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 23-26 May 1999, Lokve,
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Zagbred.
Buckland, M. (2000), An Analysis of the Effects on Searching of the Use Three Subdomain Entry
Vocabularies: Technical Note, School of Information Management & Systems, UC Berkeley.
Search Support for Unfamiliar Metadata Project, (1st ed., 1999), available at: http://
metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/domain.html
Buckland, M., Chen, A., Chen, H.-M., Kim, Y., Lam, B., Larson, R., Barbara Norgard, B. and
Purat, J. (1999), Mapping Entry Vocabulary to Unfamiliar Metadata Vocabularies. D-Lib
Magazine 5, No. 1, January, available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/buckland/
01buckland.html
Buckland, M.K., Chen, A., Gebbie, M., Kim, Y. and Norgard, B. (2000), ``Variation by subdomain
in indexes to knowledge organization systems'', paper for International Society for
Knowledge Organization, ISKO6, Toronto, July, available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/
papers/iskopaper.html
Buckland, M., Jiang, H., Kim, Y. and Petras, V. (2001), ``Domain-based indexes: indexing for
communities of users'', in 3e CongreÁs du Chapitre FrancËais de L'ISKO, 506 Juillet 2001.
Filtrage et ReÂsume Informatique de l'Information sur les ReÂseaux, Universite Nanterre
Paris X, Paris, pp. 181-5.
Budd, J.M. (2001), Knowledge and Knowing in Library and Information Science: A Philosophical
Framework, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.
Busch-Lauer, I.-A. (1991), Englische Fachtexte in der padagogischen Psychologie; eine linguistische
Analyse, Leipziger Fachsprachen-Studien. Bd. 2, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main and
New York, NY.
CabreÂ, M.T. (1998), Terminology; Theory, Methods and Applications, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam.
Champeaux, D., de Lea, D. and Faure, P. (1993), Object-Oriented System Development, Addison
Wesley, Reading, MA, available at: g.oswego.edu/dl/oosdw3/ch13.html#berard
Colby, S.M., Normore, L., Watson, B., Barton, C. and Kalfatovic, M. (2001), ``Pathfinders'', OCLC
Newsletter, No. 252, July/August, pp. 37-41, available at: www.pais.org/news/corc.stm
Cooke, N.J. (1994), ``Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques'', International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies , Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 801-49.
Cronin, B. (1984), The Citation Process, The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific
Communication, Taylor Graham Publishing, Cambridge.
Cronin, B., Snyder, H. and Atkins, H. (1997), ``Comparative citation rankings of authors in Domain analysis
monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology'', Journal of Documentation,
Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 263-73.
in information
Danmarks Tekniske Bibliotek (1975, 1981), Dansk fagterminologi [1-2]. Bibliografi over science
ordbùger, haÊndbùger m.m. til brug ved oversñttelsesarbejdet, Danish technical, scientific,
and professional terms, Danmarks tekniske Bibliotek, Lyngby.
Danziger, K. (1990), Constructing the Subject. Historical Origins of Psychological Research, 455
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Danziger, K. (1997), Naming the Mind. How Psychology Found its Language, Sage, London.
Davenport, N.A. and Vajs, K.M. (1987), ``Research guides in a public policy environment'',
Reference Librarian, Vol. 20, pp. 55-70.
Davidson, E.J. (2000), ``Analyzing genre of organizational communication in clinical information
systems'', Information Technology and People, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 196-209.
Day, A. and Walsh, M. (Eds) (2000), Walford's Guide to Reference Material. Vol. 2. Social and
Historical Sciences, Philosophy and Religion, 8th ed., Library Association Publishing,
London.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Day, R.E. (2001), The Modern Invention of Information: Discourse, History, and Power, Southern
Illinois University Press.
de Beaugrande, R. (1997), ``On history and historicity in modern linguistics. Formalism versus
functionalism revisited 1'', Functions of Language, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 169-213, available at:
www.beaugrande.com/, (accessed 1 January 2002).
Dervin, B. (1999), ``On studying information seeking methodologically: the implications of
connecting metatheory to method'', Information Processing and Management, Vol. 35,
pp. 727-50.
Dietz, G. (1995), Titel wissenschaftlicher Texte, Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 26,
G. Narr, TuÈbingen.
Foskett, D.J. (1974), Classification and Indexing in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed., Butterworths,
London.
Foucault, M. (1970), The Order of Things; An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (translated
from Les Mots et les Choses: Une Archeologie des Sciences Humaines, Gallimard, Paris,
1966), Tavistock Publications, London.
Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, (translated from the French by Sheridan
Smith, A.M., from L'Archeologie du Savoir, Gallimard, Paris, 1969), Pantheon Books, New
York, NY.
Frohmann, B. (1990), ``Rules of indexing: a critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory'',
Journal of Documentation, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 81-101.
Frohmann, B. (1994), ``Discourse analysis as a research method in library and information
science'', Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 119-38.
Garfield, G. (1965), ``Can citation indexing be automated?'', in Stevens, M.E. et al. (Eds), Statistical
Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation. Symposium Proceedings,
Washington, 1964, National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous, Publication No. 269,
pp. 189-92. (Reprinted in Essays of an Information Scientist, Vol. 1, 1962-1973, pp. 84-90),
available at: 165.123.33.33/eugene_garfield/essays/V1p084y1962-73.pdf
Garfield, E. (1976), ``Social-sciences citation index clusters'', Current Contents, Vol. N27, pp. 5-11.
Garfield, E. (1978), ``High-impact science and the case of Arthur Jensen'', Current Contents,
Vol. N41, pp. 5-15.
JDOC Garfield, E. (1979), Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and
Humanities, John Wiley, New York, NY.
58,4
Garfield, E. (1980), ``Is information retrieval in the arts and humanities inherently different from
that in science? The effect that ISI's citation index for the arts and humanities is expected
to have on future scholarship'', Library Quarterly, pp. 40-57.
Garfield, E. (1992), ``Psychology research, 1986-1990 ± a citationist perspective on the highest
456 impact papers, institutions, and authors'', Current Contents, Vol. 41, 12 October, pp. 5-13.
Garvey, W.D. and Griffith, B.C. (1967), ``Scientific communication as a social system, Science,
Vol. 157, pp. 1011-16.
Garvey, W.D. and Griffith, B.C. (1971), ``Scientific communication: its role in the conduct of
research and the creation of knowledge'', American Psychologist, Vol. 26, pp. 349-62.
Garvey, W.D. and Griffith, B.C. (1972), ``Communication and information processing within
scientific disciplines: empirical findings for psychology'', Information Storage and
Retrieval, Vol. 8, pp. 123-36.
GaÈrdenfors, P. (1999), ``Cognitive science: from computers to anthills as models of human
thought'', Human IT, Vol. 3 No. 2, available at: www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-99/pg.htm
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
TuÈbingen.
Lakemeyer, G. (1997), ``Relevance from an epistemic perspective'', Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 97,
pp. 137-67.
Lambrecht, K. (1996), Information Structure and Sentence Form; Topic, Focus and the Mental
Representations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics No. 71,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Langridge, D.W. (1976), Classification and Indexing in the Humanities, Butterworths, London.
Leydesdorff, L. (2001), A Sociological Theory of Communication: The Self-organization of the
Knowledge-based Society, Universal Publishers/uPublish.com
Li, T. (2000), Social Science Reference Sources. A Practical Guide, 3rd ed., Greenwood Press,
Westport, CT.
Liddy, E.D. (1998), ``Enhanced text retrieval using natural language processing'', Bulletin of the
American Society for Information Science, Vol. 24 No. 4, available at: www.asis.org/
Bulletin/Apr-98/index.html
Lloyd, C. (1993), The Structures of History, Blackwell, Oxford.
Losee, R.M. and Haas, S.W. (1995), ``Sublanguage terms ± dictionaries, usage, and automatic
classification'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 7,
pp. 519-29.
Luckhardt, H.-D. (1984), ``Erste U È berlegungen zur Vervendung des Sublanguage-Konzepts in
SUSY'', Multilingua, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 135-42.
Luckhardt, H.-D. (1998), ``Sublanguages, in Approaches to sense disambiguation. With respect to
automatic indexing and machine translation'', Saarland University, Department of
Information Science, SaarbruÈcken, available at: is.uni-sb.de/papers/iwscript/infoling/ambi/
sublanguage.html
Lykke Nielsen, M. (2000a), ``Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction'', ASIS
SIG Classification Research Workshop, Classification for User Support and Learning
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Chicago, IL, Sunday, 12 November, available at:
uma.info-science.uiowa.edu/sigcr/papers/sigcr00lykke.pdf (accessed 18 September 2001).
Lykke Nielsen, M. (2000b), ``Domain analysis, an important part of thesaurus construction'', ASIS
SIG Classification Research Workshop. Classification for User Support and Learning
Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers Chicago, IL Sunday, 12 November, Powerpoint
presentation, available at: bx.db.dk/mln/powerpoint/domain.ppt (accessed 18 September Domain analysis
2001)..
in information
McIlwaine, I.C. (2000), ``UDC in the twenty-first century'', in Marcella, R. and Maltby, A. (Eds),
The Future of Classification, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
science
MacRoberts, M.H. and MacRoberts, B.R. (1989), ``Problems of citation analysis: a critical review'',
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 342-9.
Madigan, R., Johnson, S. and Linton, P. (1995), ``The language of psychology: APA style as 459
epistemology'', American Psychologist, Vol. 50, pp. 428-36.
Madigan, R., Linton, P. and Johnson, S. (1996), ``APA style: Quo vadis?'', American Psychologist,
Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 653-5.
Malmkjñr, K. (1995), ``Genre analysis'', in Malmkjñr, K. (Ed.), The Linguistics Encyclopedia,
Routledge, London, pp. 170-81.
Maniez, J. (1997), ``Database merging and the compatibility of indexing languages'', Knowledge
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 213-24.
Mayes, P.B. (1978), ``The readability of guides to the literature'', Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 30 No. 3,
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
pp. 123-6.
Mills, J. (1957), ``The classification of a subject fieldon'', Proceedings of the International Study
Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House,
Dorking, 13-17 May, Aslib, London, pp. 29-42.
Mills, J. and Broughton, V. (1977), ``Introduction and auxilliary schedules'', Bliss Bibliographical
Classification, 2nd ed., Butterworths, London.
Myers, G. (1990), Writing Biology. Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, The
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Myers, G. (1991), ``Stories and styles in two molecular biology review articles'', in Bazerman, C.
and Paradis, J. (Eds), Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Historical and Contemporary
Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, University of Winconsin Press, Madison,
WI, pp. 45-75.
National Library of Medicine (2001), Fact Sheet: NLM Classification, US National Library of
Medicine, Bethesda, MD, available at: www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html
Neighbors, J.M. (1980), Software Construction Using Components, Technical Report 160,
Department of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA.
Nystrand, M., Greene, S. and Wiemelt, J. (1993), ``Where did composition studies come from?'',
Written Communication, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 267-333.
Ostwald, W. (1919), Die chemische Literatur und die Organisation der Wissenschaft, Leipzig.
Ovesen, J. (1989), ``Classificare Necesse Est. Lidt om klassifikation i antropologien ± og ogsaÊ
ellers'', in Harbo, O. and Kajberg, L. (Eds), Orden i papirerne ± en hilsen til J.B. Friis-
Hansen, Danmarks Biblioteksskole, Copenhagen, pp. 117-22.
Persson, O. (2000), ``Influential authors in library and information science 1986-1996, an all author
co-citation map'', available at: www.umu.se/inforsk/LIS/index.htm
Persson, O. (2001), ``All author citations versus first author citations'', Scientometrics, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 339-44.
Petras, V. (2000), ``Subdomain entry vocabulary modules evaluation. Variation in subdomain
indexes'', available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/subdvariation.html
Prieto-Diaz, R. (1990), ``Domain analysis: an introduction'', Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 47-54.
JDOC Procter, R., Goldenberg, A., Davenport, E. and McKinlay, A. (1998), ``Genres in support of
collaborative information retrieval in the virtual library'', Interacting with Computers,
58,4 Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 157-75.
PsycINFO (2002), PsycINFO Classification Categories and Codes, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, available at: www.apa.org/psycinfo/about/classcodes.html
Rasch, G. (1960), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Danmarks
pñdagogiske Institut, Copenhagen.
460
Rees-Potter, L.K. and Rees-Potter, L.K. (1989), ``Dynamic thesaural systems: a bibliometric study
of terminological and conceptual change in sociology and economics with application to
the design of dynamic thesaural systems'', Information Processing & Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 677-91.
Rees-Potter, L. and Rees-Potter, L.K. (1991), ``Dynamic thesauri: the cognitive function. Tools for
knowledge organisation and the human interface'', Proceedings of the 1st International
ISKO Conference, Darmstadt, 14-17 August 1990, Part 2, pp. 145-50.
Reiss, E. (2000), Information Architecture Handbook; A Hands-on Approach to Structuring
Successful Websites, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Swales, J.M. (1986), ``Citation analysis and discourse analysis'', Applied Linguistics, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 39-56
Swales, J.M. (1990), Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Taylor, P.J. (1978), Information Guides. A Survey of Subject Guides to Sources of Information
Produced by Library and Information Services in the United Kingdom, Aslib, Research and
Development Department, London.
Tibbo, H.R. (1992), ``Abstracting across the disciplines: a content analysis of abstracts from the
natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting
standards and online information retrieval'', Library & Information Science Research,
Vol. 14, pp. 31-56
Tibbo, H.R. (1993), Abstracting, Information Retrieval and the Humanities. Providing Access to
Historical Literature, American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Tibbo, H.R. (1994), ``Indexing for the humanities'', Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 607-19.
Timm, C. (1992), Gibt es eine Fachsprache der Literaturwissenschaft? Fachtextlinguistische
Untersuchungen an englischen Texten der Literaturgeschichtsschreibung, Leipziger
Fachsprachen-Studien, Bd. 4, P. Lang, Frankfurt am Main and New York, NY.
Timpka, T. (1995), ``Situated clinical cognition'', Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Vol. 7,
pp. 387-94.
Towery, M. (Ed.) (1998), Indexing Specialties: History, Information Today, Medford, NJ.
Unisist (1971), Study Report on the Feasibility of a World Science Information System, The United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the International Council of
Scientific Unions, Unesco, Paris.
Vickery, B.C. (1960), Faceted Classification. A Guide to the Construction and Use of Special
Schemes, Aslib, London.
Vickery, B.C. (1975), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed., Butterworths, London.
Vickery, B.C. (1997), ``Ontologies'', Journal of Information Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 277-86.
von Eyben, W.E. (1989), ``Juridisk stil og sprogbrug'', in, Kùbenhavn, S., Juridisk grundbog, Bd. 3,
pp. 11-62.
JDOC von Hahn, W. (Ed.) (1981), Fachsprachen, Wege der Forschung, Bd. 498, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
58,4
Walker, G. (1990), ``Searching the humanities: subject overlap and search vocabulary'', Database,
pp. 37-46.
Wallerstein, I. et al. (1996), Open the Social Sciences, Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the
Restructuring of the Social Sciences, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
462 Webb, W.H. (Ed.) (1986), Sources of Information in the Social Sciences: A Guide to the Literature,
3rd ed., American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
Wendt, S. (1997), Terminus, Thesaurus, Text; Theorie und Praxis von Fachbegriffsystemen und
ihrer Reprasentation in Fachtexten, Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 37, G. Narr,
TuÈbingen.
White, H.D. and McCain, K.W. (1998), ``Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of
information science, 1972-1995'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 327-55.
Whitley, R. (2000), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed., Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Wiberly, S.E. (1983), ``Subject access in the humanities and the precision of the humanist's
vocabulary'', Library Quarterly, pp. 420-33.
Williams, R.V. (1997), ``The documentation and special libraries movements in the United States,
1910-1960'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 48 No. 9,
pp. 775-81, (reprinted in Hahn, T.B. and Buckland, M. (Eds) (1998), Historical Studies in
Information Science, ASIS/Information Today, Medford, NJ, pp. 173-80).
Wilson, T.D. (1994), ``Information needs and uses: fifty years of progress?'', in Vickery, B.C. (Ed.),
Fifty Years of Information Progress: A Journal of Documentation Review, Aslib, London,
pp. 15-51.
Wyman, L.P. (Ed.) (1999), Indexing Specialities: Medicine, Information Today, Medford, NJ.
This article has been cited by:
1. 2016. ‘Graphic Medicine’ as a Mental Health Information Resource: Insights from Comics Producers. The
Comics Grid: Journal of Comics Scholarship 6. . [CrossRef]
2. Tibor Koltay, Sonja Špiranec, László Z. KarvalicsThe Nature of Information Literacy 61-110. [CrossRef]
3. Tibor Koltay, Sonja Špiranec, László Z. KarvalicsShifting Research Paradigms Toward Research 2.0 1-59.
[CrossRef]
4. References 155-176. [CrossRef]
5. Brendan Luyt. 2015. Replacing the ideology of information by exploring domains of knowledge. Journal
of Documentation 71:6, 1289-1299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Jill McTavish. 2015. Everyday life classification practices and technologies. Journal of Documentation 71:5,
957-975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Scott Weingart. 2015. The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. Journal of Documentation
71:4, 775-794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. David Martín-Moncunill, Miguel-Ángel Sicilia-Urban, Elena García-Barriocanal, Salvador Sánchez-
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
Alonso. 2015. Evaluating the degree of domain specificity of terms in large terminologies. Online
Information Review 39:3, 326-345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Gilbert Chien Liu, Jere D. Odell, Elizabeth C. Whipple, Rick Ralston, Aaron E. Carroll, Stephen M.
Downs. 2015. Data visualization for truth maintenance in clinical decision support systems. International
Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2, 64-69. [CrossRef]
10. Richard P. SmiragliaDiscourse domains and their role in knowledge production dissemination and
organization 1-18. [CrossRef]
11. Richard P. SmiragliaEmpirical methods for visualizing domains 41-50. [CrossRef]
12. Richard P. SmiragliaDomain analysis as a methodological paradigm in knowledge organization 19-40.
[CrossRef]
13. Daniel Martínez-Ávila, Rosa San Segundo, Francisco A. Zurian. 2014. Retos y oportunidades
en organización del conocimiento en la intersección con las tecnologías de la
información. Revista española de Documentación Científica 37:10.3989/redc.2014.v37.i3, e053.
[CrossRef]
14. Jenna Hartel. 2014. An interdisciplinary platform for information behavior research in the liberal arts
hobby. Journal of Documentation 70:5, 945-962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Charlie Mayor, Lyn Robinson. 2014. Ontological realism and classification: Structures and concepts in the
Gene Ontology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 686-697. [CrossRef]
16. Hans Jørn Nielsen, Birger Hjørland. 2014. Curating research data: the potential roles of libraries and
information professionals. Journal of Documentation 70:2, 221-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Dante Guerrero, Jesús Martínez-Almela, José L. Yagüe, Gerson La Rosa, Catherin Girón, Karen Zatán.
2014. Approximation to the Study of Scientific Production of AEIPRO's International Congresses in
Engineering and Project Management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 119, 796-804. [CrossRef]
18. Rachel Ivy Clarke. 2014. Find, identify, select…socialize?: Alternative objectives of library catalogs.
Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 51:10.1002/meet.2014.51.issue-1,
1-5. [CrossRef]
19. Steven E. Wallis. 2014. A Systems Approach to Understanding Theory: Finding the Core, Identifying
Opportunities for Improvement, and Integrating Fragmented Fields. Systems Research and Behavioral Science
31:10.1002/sres.v31.1, 23-31. [CrossRef]
20. David Bawden, Lyn Robinson. 2013. No such thing as society? On the individuality of information
behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64:10.1002/
asi.2013.64.issue-12, 2587-2590. [CrossRef]
21. Jan Michael Nolin. 2013. The special librarian and personalized meta-services. Library Review 62:8/9,
508-524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Luanne Freund. 2013. A cross-domain analysis of task and genre effects on perceptions of usefulness.
Information Processing & Management 49, 1108-1121. [CrossRef]
23. Shirley A. Williams, Melissa M. Terras, Claire Warwick. 2013. What do people study when they study
Twitter? Classifying Twitter related academic papers. Journal of Documentation 69:3, 384-410. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
24. Sylvain K. Cibangu. 2013. A memo of qualitative research for information science: toward theory
construction. Journal of Documentation 69:2, 194-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Jin Ha Lee, Joseph T. Tennis, Rachel Ivy Clarke, Michael Carpenter. 2013. Developing a video game
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
metadata schema for the Seattle Interactive Media Museum. International Journal on Digital Libraries 13,
105-117. [CrossRef]
26. Alon Friedman, Richard P. Smiraglia. 2013. Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge
organization. Journal of Documentation 69:1, 27-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. David A. JankCharacteristics of Collaborative Partnerships in Library Technology and Web Service
Initiatives: Emergent Patterns and Lessons Learned 3-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
28. References 267-302. [CrossRef]
29. Monika Pietras, Lyn Robinson. 2012. Three views of the “musical work”: bibliographical control in the
music domain. Library Review 61:8/9, 551-560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Fran Alexander. 2012. Assessing information taxonomies using epistemology and the sociology of science.
Journal of Documentation 68:5, 725-743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Betsy Van der Veer Martens, Connie Van Fleet. 2012. Opening the black box of “relevance work”: A
domain analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63:10.1002/asi.v63.5,
936-947. [CrossRef]
32. Clare Thornley. 2012. Information retrieval (IR) and the paradox of change. Journal of Documentation
68:3, 402-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Georg Groh, Christoph Fuchs. 2011. Multi-modal social networks for modeling scientific fields.
Scientometrics 89, 569-590. [CrossRef]
34. Margaret Lam. 2011. Towards a “musicianship model” for music knowledge organization. OCLC Systems
& Services: International digital library perspectives 27:3, 190-209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Rose Marie Santini. 2011. Collaborative classification of popular music on the internet and its social
implications. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives 27:3, 210-247. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
36. David Bawden, Lyn Robinson. 2011. Pharmaceutical information: A 30-year perspective on the literature.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45:10.1002/aris.144.v45:1, 63-119. [CrossRef]
37. Jenna Hartel. 2010. Managing documents at home for serious leisure: a case study of the hobby of gourmet
cooking. Journal of Documentation 66:6, 847-874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Jens‐Erik Mai. 2010. Classification in a social world: bias and trust. Journal of Documentation 66:5,
627-642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Mónica Izquierdo Alonso, Luis Miguel Moreno Fernández. 2010. Perspectives of studies on document
abstracting. Journal of Documentation 66:4, 563-584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Charles Inskip, Andy MacFarlane, Pauline Rafferty. 2010. Organising music for movies. Aslib Proceedings
62:4/5, 489-501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Eun-Gyoung Seo. 2010. Longitudinal Analysis of Information Science Research in JASIST 1985-2009.
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management 27, 129-155. [CrossRef]
42. Jan Nolin, Fredrik Åström. 2010. Turning weakness into strength: strategies for future LIS. Journal of
Documentation 66:1, 7-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. EunKyung Chung, Shawne Miksa, Samantha K. Hastings. 2010. A framework of automatic subject term
assignment for text categorization: An indexing conception-based approach. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
44. Lyn Robinson. 2009. Information science: communication chain and domain analysis. Journal of
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)
83. Martin Thellefsen. 2003. The role of special language in relation to knowledge organization. Proceedings
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 40, 206-212. [CrossRef]
84. Trine Fjordback Søndergaard, Jack Andersen, Birger Hjørland. 2003. Documents and the communication
of scientific and scholarly information. Journal of Documentation 59:3, 278-320. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
85. Birger Hj�rland. 2003. Arguments for epistemology in information science. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology 54:10.1002/asi.v54:8, 805-806. [CrossRef]
86. 2003. Book reviews. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54:10.1002/
asi.v54:2, 182-184. [CrossRef]
87. David A. JankUnderstanding User Attitudes toward Information Systems 121-137. [CrossRef]
88. References 407-480. [CrossRef]
89. Donald O. CaseChapter 9 Methods: Examples by Type 221-267. [CrossRef]
90. José Poças RascãoModeling Architecture of Information 61-94. [CrossRef]