You are on page 1of 47

Journal of Documentation

Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches – traditional as well as


innovative
Birger Hjørland
Article information:
To cite this document:
Birger Hjørland, (2002),"Domain analysis in information science", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 58 Iss 4
pp. 422 - 462
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220410210431136
Downloaded on: 21 March 2016, At: 12:37 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 197 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

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.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm

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.

Introduction: the role of domain studies in IS


Information science developed out of special librarianship and documentation,
and special librarianship has an approach that has often lacked understanding
from general librarianship (see Williams, 1997). I think it is important to
understand this tension. Special librarians are, in my opinion, not ``special'', but
represent a valuable and fruitful general approach to library and information
science (LIS). It is not the purpose of this article to present or discuss the
relation between general librarianship and special librarianship. The core idea
of the specialist library approach may be that information resources should be
identified, described, organised and communicated to serve specific goals.
Obviously, medical librarianship (documentation or information science)
should serve people dealing with health problems. The criterion of the success
of doctors is the cure of the patients. The criterion of the success of information
systems is that they identify and communicate the knowledge needed for the
doctors to cure the patients. I think that this view has been an implicit
philosophy in documentation and information science. In my opinion even
general librarianship has to cope with different domains and may well benefit
from considering the domain analytic view. One cannot treat all domains as if
they are fundamentally similar, and a theoretical approach to LIS should
Journal of Documentation, consider different discourse communities.
Vol. 58 No. 4, 2002, pp. 422-462.
# MCB UP Limited, 0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220410210431136 The author thanks Trine Fjord Sùndergaard for drawing Figure 3.
The main problem with this philosophy has been how to train professional Domain analysis
information specialists and do research without just teaching research subject in information
knowledge per se. An ordinary subject specialist is not a specialist in IS. The science
domain analytic approach (Hjùrland, 1993; Hjùrland and Albrechtsen, 1995) is
an attempt to tackle this problem, and the present paper is a specification of a
number of different approaches within the domain analytic view that can be
used to obtain this goal. By bringing these approaches together the paper 423
advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but
which has not before been set out systematically. The approaches presented
here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but an attempt is made to
present the state of the art.

Producing literature guides or subject gateways


Literature guides may also be termed ``guides to information sources'', ``guides
to reference materials'', ``how to find out about . . . '', ``pathfinders'', ``subject
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

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)

of Information Produced by Library and Information Services in the United


Kingdom (Taylor, 1978) conducted by ASLIB, Mayes' (1978) investigation of
the readability of guides to the literature, and Kapoun's (1995) discussion of
criteria for the evaluation of guides. Anson and Woodward (1992) and Surles
(1989) surveyed legal research guides, while Allen (1993) surveyed essential
business reference sources. Bertram (1974) presented library pathfinders
developed in project Intrex by the library staff of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Bland (1990); Jarvis (1985) and Summerville (1990) discuss how
subject guides may be integrated into the library catalogues. Davenport and
Vajs (1987) outlined developments which include on-line guides that will have
direct links to the Library of Congress SCORPIO system, while Colby et al.
(2001) present OCLC's initiatives concerning the incorporation of pathfinders to
their services.
What is the method of this approach to domain analysis? What are the
strong and weak sides of it?
The method consists of:
. surveying the literature in a domain;
. classifying it according to its specific roles or functions in information
seeking, developing a taxonomy or typology of kinds of documents;
. describing the characteristics of individual reference works
(idiographical approach);
. selecting the most important sources; and
. providing guidelines about how to use the information sources.
As a research method this is not recognised as proper research. One real
weakness is that the methods and decisions are not explicated and considered.
It is rather seen as compilatory work than as research. (The idiographical
method is, however, accepted as research in the humanities.) Work of this kind
is poorly represented in book reviews in scientific journals in IS and the
authors/compilators thus poorly cited. Another problem is that such work is Domain analysis
extremely time consuming and becomes obsolete very fast. in information
It has, however, also strong sides. It is really important to know the most science
important information sources in one or more domains at a rather detailed
level. It has a strong relevance for practical information work. It develops a
feeling of the structures of information sources from a systems point of view.
Other kinds of domain analysis (e.g. user studies) need this kind of knowledge 425
as a basis. Alternative kinds of research also have weaknesses, and one should
not abandon an approach because of some prejudices if the alternatives are not
better.
Conclusion: our profession and discipline need quality subject guides to be
produced. We should develop criteria of how to explicate and evaluate such
work and we should review such work more intensively. We should also
combine such work with other approaches to domain analysis. Research in this
area could benefit by being combined with other approaches to domain
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.

Constructing special classifications and thesauri


Professional literature about classifying specific fields of knowledge is limited
in amount and in methodology. Most research on classification is about
universal classification schemes and little has been done about special
domains. The lack of interest in special schemes is problematic for several
reasons, one being that lack of knowledge on the classification of a specific field
also is reflected in the updating and revision of universal schemes (see e.g.
McIlwaine 2000). The neglect of research on special classification systems must
also be seen in contrast to the great number of classification systems in
existence. Almost every database like MEDLINE (National Library of
Medicine, 2001) or PsycINFO (2002) has a special classification system which
has been developed independently of methodologies of information science, but
just developed ad hoc.
Thesauri are mainly domain specific vocabularies, and the methodology of
designing them can also be seen as one (implicit) form of domain analysis.
There exist standards and guidelines for their development, and a prominent
manual is that of Aitchison et al. (2000). The literature about thesauri seems
somewhat larger and broader in methodology compared to special
classifications. The dominant methodology for constructing thesauri seems to
be related to the facet analytic method in classification. The use of natural
language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is also
relatively well represented in the literature (see Spark Jones, 1992). The use of
citation, co-citation analysis and citation context analysis for thesaurus
JDOC construction is described by Rees-Potter and Rees-Potter (1989, 1991), who
58,4 investigated a mechanism by which thesauri can be semi-automatically
constructed and maintained based on the hypothesis that highly cited papers
are concept symbols. This last example is a unique attempt to broaden the set
of methodologies of thesaurus construction. Spark Jones (1992) concludes her
article saying: ``There is, however, a manifest need for more work applying
426 automatic classification methods that already exist to the field and on
developing relevant new methods''. This confirms my own experience that the
methodology still seems to be rather narrow.
Both classification systems and thesauri consist basically of the central
concepts of a domain arranged according to semantic relations such as generic
relations and synonymity, for which reason the methodologies for constructing
them must fundamentally be related, which is also stressed by Aitchison (1995)
in her review of Class R of the Bliss system (2nd ed.):
Class R Politics and Public Administration could become a model for future classification
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

systems and thesauri in the field of politics . . .

In the rest of this section some perspectives on the methodology of


classification are introduced, without distinguishing thesaurus construction
from special classifications.
We can differentiate between classification systems for documents
(``bibliographical classification systems'') and classification systems for the
objects of the study of different disciplines such as animals, mental diseases,
chemical elements, historical periods, etc. (``scientific classification''). There are
many important works on scientific classification, among others, Bryant (2001),
Hull (1998) and various articles in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Under the label
Taxonomy, Hull (1998) discusses biological classification and states that:
The fundamental elements of any classification are its theoretical commitments, basic units
and the criteria for ordering these basic units into a classification. Two fundamentally
different sorts of classification are those that reflect structural organisation and those that are
systematically related to historical development.

Later on he continues under the heading ``Epistemology and the goals of


classification'':
Throughout the history of biological systematics, conflicts have arisen over the kind and
degree of certainty that is required in science. At one extreme, some systematists are satisfied
to produce classifications based on a host of tacit evaluations and patchy evidence. For them,
classification is mainly an art. At the other extreme, are those systematists who insist that
intuitive guesses must be replaced by strict quantitative techniques. These systematists also
view scientific theories with suspicion. Two sorts of ``theory'' have come under special
scrutiny ± phylogeny reconstruction and evolutionary theory itself. Systematists have
rediscovered a problem long familiar to philosophers. How can one know that a particular
chunk of metal is gold unless one knows what gold is, and how can one know what gold is
without inspecting some samples of gold? But if one does not know what gold is, one cannot
decide what to inspect . . . (Hull, 1998).

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)

criticised the way anthropology was classified in the Danish Decimal


Classification:
In the academic world, both in Denmark and internationally, cultural and social anthropology
(in Denmark still termed by its former name: ethnography) is an independent science with its
own institutes at universities, own terminology and scientific historical development and a
relatively well delimited subject literature. [Note omitted.] This is, however, not the case in
DK5! [The Danish Decimal Classification System, 5th. ed., which is a Danish modified Dewey
system]. In this system it is more important, apparently, to draw meaningless distinctions
between, for example, European and non-European cultures, between ``developed cultures''
and ``primitive people'', between the life of ordinary people and cultural processes, between
social anthropology and ethnography etc. These distinctions obviously come from the
strange understanding that ethnography should only deal with the pure description of
primitive people, who are not in a process of cultural change caused by the meeting with the
Western World.
From the point of view of the discipline such delimitation is totally absurd. Firstly, there is
today general consensus that ``pure descriptions'' do not exist in ethnography or in other
humanistic disciplines. Descriptions are not independent of the cultural background, the
education, the personality etc. of the ethnographer. All description involves at the same time
some kind of interpretation or even analysis. Secondly, decades of discussion about the
concept of primitivism have resulted in the view that it seems no longer meaningful to use the
phrase ``primitive people''. Thirdly, today there are only few if any groups of people who have
not been culturally changed in one way or another caused by the contact with Western
industrialised societies. One thus faces the paradoxical situation that the discipline of
anthropology, which for decades has experienced an important growth and development, is
represented in DK5 by a class (59.5) in which the increase of literature must, of necessity, be
very limited. The result has been that the central works of anthropology are not kept together
but are scattered in a number of rather different classes. Besides class 59.5 the classes 29,
30.12, 39 and 98 are the most important ones . . . (Ovesen, 1989, pp. 120-2; translated by B.H.,
emphasis in original).

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)

example, the development and epistemological assumptions of the social


sciences is necessary in order to understand, develop or evaluate classification
schemes that incorporate the social sciences (whether universal or special). A
text that seriously considers the consequences of classifications and their social
and ideological embeddedness and thus applies what I label the pragmatic
approach is Bowker and Star (1999). All these perspectives are missing in the
facet analytic tradition, but should be considered. Hjùrland (1998a) discusses
the main methodologies for classifying a subject domain and compares them in
a case study of psychology.
While the construction of special classifications seems not to be a flourishing
activity in IS, it seems that the same activity is flourishing in computer science
under the label ontologies (see Soergel, 1999 and Vickery, 1997). Even here, the
methodology seems, however, to be rather narrow.
Conclusion: classification research is often regarded as a cornerstone in LIS.
As demonstrated above, we need, however, to broaden its perspective and to
take it more seriously as a field of research. It seems to share many of the same
kinds of weaknesses and strengths as the production of subject guides: it has a
high practical value, but it is difficult and time-consuming and has too little
academic reward. None of the leading classification researchers are thus visible
in bibliometric maps such as White and McCain (1998).
Research on classification of subject domains can benefit from co-operating
with other approaches to domain analysis, in particular with:
. research on indexing and retrieving specialities;
. bibliometrical studies;
. historical studies;
. epistemological and critical studies; and
. terminological studies and LSP (languages for special purposes).
Indexing and retrieving specialities Domain analysis
In the 1970s a series of textbooks about indexing and classification in the social in information
sciences, the humanities and in science was published (Foskett, 1974; science
Langridge, 1976; Vickery, 1975). When these books became obsolete it was very
difficult to find suitable successors for courses about indexing and retrieval in
specific domains at schools of LIS. One good sign of an increasing interest in
this issue is the starting of the publication of the book series, Indexing 429
Specialties, which started in 1998[1].
None of the above mentioned titles represent proper research activities in
LIS, and they are rather unrelated to mainstream research in IS. The most
promising researcher in this field is, in my opinion, H.R. Tibbo (1992, 1993,
1994), who clearly demonstrates the limitations of universal indexing principles
(and the existing standards) in the humanities. When the Arts & Humanities
Citation Index was produced Garfield (1980) wrote an important article about
the differences between the humanities on the one side and the sciences and
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.

Empirical user studies


There is a lot of research about user behaviour, information seeking behaviour,
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

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)

studying the behaviour of non-professionals. The tendency to try to measure


users' information need by questioning them or by studying their behaviour
seems to me mistaken. What information is needed to solve a given problem is
not primarily a psychological question, but a theoretical/philosophical one:
For instance, a student solving a geometry problem involving a right-angled rectangle may
not see the connection to the Pythagorean Theorem (Lakemeyer, 1997, p. 138).

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)

maps. If, for example, classification research is regarded an important subfield


of LIS, other journals such as Knowledge Organization should be included.
Second, such maps depend very much on the citation behaviour of the
authors writing the papers on which the maps are based. Garfield (1965),
KovaÂts (1977), Cronin (1984) and Seglen (1996a) among others have provided
insight into the motives of citation and their implications for bibliometric
analysis (``citationology''). The most obvious bias is the negative citations in
which authors cite other documents in order to express their disagreement.
One well known and well documented example is the Harvard psychologist
Arthur Jensen who got most of his citations from researchers who were in
disagreement with and critical of Jensen's work (see Garfield, 1978). This
example indicates that some papers may be too much cited. Another kind of
bias is represented by different kinds of non-citedness or under-citedness.
KovaÂts (1977) investigates non-indexed eponymal citedness (NIEC) as well as
non-indexed indirect-collective citedness. NIEC refers to the practice of
referring to a law, a concept, an instrument etc. (e.g. ``Pauli exclusion
principle'') without direct reference to the author or the work in which this law
or concept was first presented. Because of this practice, outstanding
achievements often receive less than 50 percent of the citations they ought to
be credited with. KovaÂts (1977) also reported that non-indexed indirect-
collective references of the form (e.g. `` . . . and the references cited therein'')
were found in 14.8 percent of the articles in Physical Journal in 1969, and such
articles cited at least ten times more articles indirectly than directly. KovaÂts
(1977, p. 707) concludes:
It must (should) be taken into consideration that the stock of indexed references in the journal
literature of natural sciences is only a part of the real stock of references; that indexed
citedness is not identical with real citedness; that the Citation Indexes are not suitable for the
measurement of real literature citedness. There is a need to amend, limit and reduce the now
commonly accepted meaning, value and validity of the quantified data of the Citation Indexes
and of ``citation analysis'' and ``metric'' studies based on them. This need especially applies
Domain analysis
where these studies wish to (mis)use the citation data of the Citation Indexes for the
evaluation of scientists as scientists or other similar, non-bibliographic purposes.
in information
Whether this conclusion is reasonable will not be discussed further here. In this science
place I only wish to point to a possible kind of bias in interpreting bibliometric
data.
Third, large amounts of research may be produced by using approaches that
are selected because they are more easy or convenient for the researchers to 435
apply. If we assume, for example, that longitudinal studies are superior
research methods in psychological research, many researchers may desist from
using it simply because it is time consuming (one has to follow a group of
people during several years). This is especially the case with time-limited
research projects such as PhD programs. This implies that books about
longitudinal methods tend to be underrepresented in such maps in spite of their
superior quality and importance. In the same way we must expect many
documents to be underrepresented because they are written in certain
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.

Document and genre studies


Information structures, information architecture
The concepts of information architecture (IA)[3] as well as genres[4] and
information structures have become important in information science and
related fields[5] , partly due to the introduction of full text retrieval systems, Domain analysis
passage retrieval systems as well as HTML-based hyper text systems on the in information
Internet. science
These important concepts need, however, to be based on more general
theories of documents, their communicative purposes and functions, their
elements and composition and their potential values in information retrieval.
Different disciplines or discourse communities develop special kinds of 437
documents as adaptations to their specific needs. Examples of unique kinds of
documents are:
. in music: sheets of music;
. in geography: maps and atlases;
. in law: codes; bodies of law;
. in astronomy: almanacs;
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

. in genealogy: pedigrees and genealogical trees; and


. in psychology: tests.
The way common document types are used varies from domain to domain. For
example, the relative importance of books and journals and whether
proceedings are regarded as formal publications or not are different from one
discipline to another. Although a high degree of standardization exists in
modern scientific articles, the form of the articles also reflects both the specific
needs of different domains and the methodologically and epistemologically
different norms (as well as technological, economic and other kinds of
influences).
The form of a document, e.g. the form of a scientific article, is perhaps
regarded as something trivial and is usually regarded as something which has
an ideal form, which is final in its historical development, can be standardised
and is independent of content and of epistemological issues. ``Publication
manuals'' exist in most academic disciplines (e.g. American Psychological
Association, 1994). They describe in great detail the way articles should be
designed. Such manuals have a highly technical and normative character, but
they are usually not reflexive concerning their suggestions in the sense that
they do not discuss publication form as an epistemological problem.
Emerging research is beginning to change this view of publication form.
This new research mostly uses social constructivism and related theories as the
epistemological point of departure. The social constructivistic theory of
semantics implies that objects are ``social constructs'' and meanings are
constructed in social discourse (most often in ways that are unconscious for the
agents involved). Research articles ± as well as other documents ± are seen as
social constructs and as ways of arguing (but never as the only way). One of the
most influential writers on this topic is Bazerman (1988, 1995). He traces much
of the rhetorical technique in scientific articles back to Isaac Newton
(1642-1727). Newton not only discovered the basic laws of macrophysics; but he
JDOC also influenced scientific argumentation and publication for about 300 years.
58,4 However, nothing remains unchanged, and Bazerman analyses changes in the
form, length and structure of the scientific article in the twentieth century.
Some of these changes are an increase in the number of references, the nature of
cited works and the distribution of the references within the article. Bazerman's
work should be of direct interest to both bibliometric studies and to IR ± or
438 rather to a broadening of the perspective of these areas. Bazerman also shows
how the publication manual in psychology reflects a behaviouristic point of
view, which implies that a manual is not a neutral form but does reflect some
epistemological norms, which can be analysed, discussed and questioned[6,7].
The work in composition studies (see Nystrand et al., 1993) and in genre
analysis (see Askehave and Swales, 2001; Malmkjñr, 1995; Swales, 1986, 1990)
is fruitful for IS not only on the concrete level, but also as an inspiration on the
methodological level. The basic methodological inspiration is connected with
the emphasis on the social and historical dimensions in communication. The
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

concept ``discourse community'' is connected to this approach (see Swales, 1990,


pp. 21-32). Different document types (or ``genres'') such as book reviews, sales
letters, cross-examinations etc. are basically understood from the point of view
of communicative goals or purposes, which, however, has turned out to be a
rather complex concept.
Conclusion: the study of document structures and genres has been relatively
neglected in IS, but recent developments in full-text retrieval have brought it to
the forefront. The qualitative and quantitative studies of different genres in
different communities may provide richer and more differentiated information
services. As an approach to domain analysis it should be combined with other
approaches, e.g:
. research on indexing and retrieving specialities;
. historical studies; and
. epistemological and critical studies.

Epistemological and critical studies


All kinds of research (indeed all kinds of behaviour) are governed by different
kinds of assumptions, background knowledge, ``theories'' etc.:
Perhaps the greatest advance in understanding the nature of explanation made in the post-
positivist and post-Kuhnian era is the general realization that methodologies, theories and
explanations are related to each other via extra-logical, historically variable constellations
variously described as ``background knowledge'', ``traditions'', ``paradigms'', ``research
programmes'', ``fields'' or ``domains''. We can call all of these ``framework concepts'' (Lloyd,
1993, p. 32).

Such knowledge may form hierarchies of various kinds. In information science,


for example, Hvari et al. (2001) distinguish between paradigms, approaches,
methodologies and techniques, forming a hierarchy of four layers from the
general to the specific. The use of such concepts varies, however, and
paradigms and approaches are often used as synonyms. The important thing is
that in every field of knowledge, and especially in the social sciences, different Domain analysis
``paradigms'', ``schools'' or approaches can be identified. As shown in Hjùrland in information
(2002) such paradigms tend to develop their own journals and communication science
structure, and their information needs and relevance criteria are to a very high
degree implied by the theoretical frame. The study of such paradigms seems
important because they represent the most general principles and theories that
can explain information behaviour that provides guidelines for evaluating 439
information systems performance. It is my claim that this approach to domain
analysis is the most basic approach and that all other approaches tend to
become superficial if this perspective is not included. I regard this approach as
related to what Saracevic (1975) called the subject knowledge view, about
which he writes:
The subject knowledge view has not been formed as yet in any detail, although considerable
material from which it can be formed exists. I wish to suggest that the subject knowledge view
of relevance is fundamental to all other views of relevance, because subject knowledge is
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

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).

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and epistemologies are


theories or approaches to knowledge. Epistemology is not limited to the
discipline of philosophy but is also influenced by scientists (e.g. Albert Einstein
and Niels Bohr). Epistemology can be seen as the generalisation and
interpretation of collected scientific experience. Therefore, theories of
epistemology are the most fundamental theories of relevance, and any
theoretical question in information science is in the end based on
epistemological assumptions. Epistemological studies are studies that examine
the explicit or implicit assumptions behind research traditions. Such
assumptions are often linked to ontological assumptions concerning the object
under study. They represent an analysis of the approaches or paradigms in
research fields. In information science, Hjùrland (1991, 1997) has, for example,
analysed the individualistic assumptions in the cognitive research programme,
pointed to its problems and suggested alternatives based on sociological
perspectives.
Epistemological studies of knowledge domains are often combined with
historical studies. This includes studies of how works have been received
(reception studies, in particular those of a more historical and social nature as
opposed to reception studies of a more psychological nature). A study of how,
for example, Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has been received
and used in, for example, social sciences is an example of this kind of reception
studies. A main theorist on this kind of reception studies is Jauss (1987).
Studies of this kind are also valuable for the interpretation of bibliometric
patterns because the researchers working under a specific approach have a
very high tendency to cite other researchers sharing the same basic
assumptions and world view (Hjùrland, 2002). Epistemological studies can on
the other hand also benefit from bibliometric studies (cf. JASIST forthcoming
JDOC special issue on the visualization of scientific paradigms). There is thus mutual
58,4 interaction.
There exist a great number of epistemological or metatheoretical positions,
so the picture is very difficult to overview. In the social sciences the already
mentioned title by Wallerstein (1996) is an epistemological and critical analysis
of the classification of the social sciences. In psychology Kurt Danziger (e.g.
440 1990, 1997) is an important figure. In LIS authors such as Day (2001) and Bernd
Frohmann (1990, 1994) can be mentioned. Also the interdisciplinary
approaches known as women's studies and social constructivism can be seen
as critical epistemological positions. In Hjùrland (1998a) I have made an
epistemological and critical study of the field of psychology. Studies of this
kind can sometimes provide hard evidence that the most dominating traditions
can be based on problematic assumptions.
For many purposes I find it fruitful to classify epistemological positions in
five broad categories:
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

(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)

language of a given domain? It is natural first to turn to linguistics. In the


history of information science there has been some connection with linguistics
(for example, Spark Jones and Kay, 1973). When information science was
established as a research discipline there was a narrow connection between
research in machine translation and information retrieval. Although natural
language processing (NLP) has always been important in IS, these areas seem
to have drifted somewhat apart. Despite important exceptions it is my
impression that Liddy (1998) is right when she states: ``It makes common sense
for linguistic processing to be used in the task of text retrieval, given that users'
queries are linguistic expressions, and the relevant documents that the system
is attempting to retrieve are also linguistic objects. While this may seem
obvious today, it has not always been the case''.

Cross disciplinary differences in LSP


In chemistry the amount of work done on terminology and the principles
governing this work seem impressive and more ``realistic'' than problems
related to the terminology of, for example, the social sciences. In chemistry, the
principles of nomenclature are described and highly standardized by
organisations such as the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC). This organisation has developed a system of principles or
recommendations for the naming of chemical elements and compounds. (My
reference is Andersen et al., 1996.) Chemical names constructed on the basis of
components based on those recommendations are termed systematic names.
These principles are realistic by reflecting the structures of the chemical
substances themselves. In chemistry, we have also trivial names which do not
reflect the composition of the substance, but, for example, its origin. Trade
names for chemicals form a well-know subclass of trivial names (e.g.
``Mediterranean salt''). To my knowledge, there is little disagreement in
chemistry about the main goal of developing standards for systematic names
and of using these principles as far as possible in information retrieval systems.
JDOC In social sciences, the situation seems very different. Although there are
58,4 organisations comparable to the American Chemical Society which develop
databases and thesauri for social sciences, the problems seem different.
Organisations such as the American Psychological Association actually
publish impressive databases (like PsycINFO) and corresponding thesauri.
There are, however, no international guidelines for psychological terminology
442 and no real research efforts either. Although many psychological dictionaries
are published and often make very good money for the publishers they often
seem to be a kind of potboiler for professors or professionals in the field. Very
seldom scholarly works about the nature of psychological/social scientific
language are published by competent researchers in the field (one exception is
Danziger, 1997). There is no indication of a relation between works about
psychological language and the work done by the staff of PsycINFO. Linguistic
works on psychological language such as the one by Busch-Lauer (1991) are
also exceptional.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

The very idea of constructing a psychological/social scientific vocabulary


reflecting a psychological or social reality in the same way that the chemical
vocabulary reflects the composition of chemical substances seems problematic.
Different schools of psychology such as behaviourism, cognitivism,
neuroscience, psychoanalysis and activity theory have developed different
vocabularies of psychology. Efforts towards standardization may therefore
suppress certain viewpoints at the expense of other viewpoints, and the very
idea of constructing one standardized language reflecting one psychological
reality seems ``positivist''. Qualified critics may be able to show that the alleged
neutrality and objectivity of languages are indeed biased by the theoretical
views of the positivist researchers. In contrast to other epistemologies
positivism does not admit its theoretical influences, but claims objectivity.
Critics of positivism, e.g. Harding (1998), do not subscribe to relativity or the
giving up of objectivity but claim that a stronger kind of objectivity may be
developed by facing the fact that science is influenced by human beings with
different kinds of experience and background knowledge.
Legal studies are a discipline in which civil service style (or ``officialese'') is a
rather well-known concept, and much more has been written about this than
about the languages of other social sciences (e.g. von Eyben, 1989). Legal
language is often accused of being unnecessarily difficult for lay people to
understand, and efforts are made in order to reduce this problem. The problems
addressed in relation to legal language seem thus to be different from the
problems discussed above in both chemistry and psychology.

Approaches to language and terminology


There may be different reasons for the relative lack of contact between IS and
linguistics. In my opinion a major reason is possibly connected to core
theoretical problems within linguistics itself. Linguists have been very
reluctant to consider sublanguages (or languages for special purposes, LSP)
proper languages and objects for study. There are, for example, very few Domain analysis
journals devoted to this area[8]. in information
The field consists of some interrelated subdisciplines. The study of science
terminology (e.g. Cabre (1998) and Somers (1996)); specialized lexicography (the
study of subject dictionaries; e.g. Bergenholtz et al. (1995), semantics and
specialized languages (e.g. Inchaurralde (1994)) and has relations to genre
studies Berkenkotte and Huckin (1995). 443
The term sublanguage was introduced by Harris (1968, p. 152) who used the
term for a portion of natural language differing from other portions of the same
language syntactically and/or lexically. Hirschman and Sager changed the
definition:
[A sublanguage is] the particular language used in a body of texts dealing with a
circumscribed subject area (often reports or articles of a technical speciality or science
subfield), in which the authors of the documents share a common vocabulary and common
habits of word usage (Hirschman and Sager, 1982, p. 28).
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

There have been sublanguage approaches applied to machine translation (MT)


and NLP by, e.g. Grishman and Kittredge (1986); Kittredge and Lehrberger
(1982), and Luckardt (1984). Unfortunately they did not lead to any kind of
breakthrough, thus this approach just obtained a status as ``potentially useful''
(cf. Luckhardt, 1998).
Research in LSP seems to be more connected to research associated with
business schools (for the education of translators), IS (information retrieval, IR),
machine translation (MT) and NLP rather than to pure linguistic departments.
Linguists may lack sufficient subject knowledge to engage themselves in this
kind of research or they may have been led by theoretical views that have
favoured other approaches. My feeling is that the structural linguistics of, for
example, Noam Chomsky, blocked the interest in LSP. This view is supported
by authorities in linguistics:
My major finding has consistently been that formalism has evaded problems or else offered
rigid and dogmatic solutions that apply divide-and-conquer methods to pick out small issues,
whereas functionalism has confronted problems and striven to formulate flexible and
negotiable solutions emphasising the unity of language and applying large issues. Yet
formalism has enjoyed unearned support from ``classical'' notions of science (generality,
abstractness, rigour, etc.) and from its grand though empty promise to deliver up ``language''
as a timeless, ``well-defined object in the heterogeneous mass of speech facts''. The outcome
has been an oddly static history of projects that in effect aspire to replace dynamic real
language with a static ideal language based upon technical fictions (``ideal speaker-hearer'',
``homogeneous speech-community'', ``language acquisition device'' etc. etc.), thereby excusing
linguists from the painstaking fieldwork, documentation, and application ± all theory and no
practice. Conversely, functionalism has been obliged to subsist as a counter-history of
projects that have naturally appeared diffuse and problematic precisely because they apply
multiple and multi-functional views to real human language in both theory and practice.
Of course, many linguists would hardly welcome my conclusions that ``mainstream
linguistics'' and the figures like Saussure and Chomsky we have been monumentalising for so
long have been seriously misguided in their projects to make linguistics into a formal science
by disconnecting language from its discursive, cognitive, and social functions; and that these
JDOC projects should now be consigned to the archives of history (de Beaugrande, 1997; references
omitted).
58,4
It is my expectation, however, that pragmatic, functional, sociolinguist or
discourse analytic approaches (e.g. M. A. K. Halliday) may help to put LSP into
the core of linguistics and lead to some kind of breakthrough[9]. The recent
pragmatic turn in linguistics may thus be very welcome from the perspective of
444 IS. GaÈrdenfors (1999) describes this in the following way:
In early cognitive science the role of culture and society in cognition was marginalized. For
Chomsky and his followers, individuals are Turing machines that process syntactic
structures according to a partly innate system of grammatical rules. Questions concerning
the meaning of the words, let alone problems related to the use of language in communication,
were seen as not properly belonging to a cognitive theory of linguistics. A new pragmatic
tradition turned the classic cognitive approach upside down. Human actions and activities
are here seen as the most basic entities; pragmatics consists of the rules for linguistic actions;
semantics is conventionalized pragmatics; and finally, syntax adds grammatical markers to
help disambiguate when the context does not suffice to do so.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

One relevant theory about LSP is the sociolinguistic theory described by


Ammon (1977). He finds that different LSPs can vary in their distance to the
common language. According to his view this distance depends on the distance
between the working sphere where it is used and the sphere that is common for
the whole society, which is the sphere of consumption. Table I shows how he
explains the relative difficulties of different LSPs as a function of their distance
from the sphere of consumption.
The fundamental principles of LSP are determined on the one hand by
different groups' different communicative needs, and on the other hand by an
economic principle, which reduces the use of redundant information. In a firm
the purchasing department must have more precise terms for tools than the
workers who manufacture the goods. The term tongs for spot weld could be

(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)

LSP in information science


As an approach in IS sublanguages have mainly been studied very recently by
a few dedicated scientists, such as Bonzi (1990); Haas (1996, 1997); Haas and He
(1993); Losee and Haas (1995) and Wiberly (1983). The most impressive projects
in this area seem to be the ones on the Unified Medical Language System
(Bodenreider annd Bean, 2001). Also the project led by Professor Buckland in
the School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley has been
productive. A number of technical reports and other papers have been
published due to this initiative, including: Buckland (1999, 2000) Buckland et al.
(1999, 2000, 2001); Kim (1998, 2000) and Petras (2000). This recent focus on
terminology in IS seems very promising from a domain analytic point of view.
My own approach to LSP and database semantics in IS has so far been of a
theoretical nature and is connected to four main assumptions:
(1) Signs and their meaning are formed by social groups primarily as part
of the social division of labour in society. Such discourse communities
may be very different in size and structure. A large number of groups
may develop symbol systems and share knowledge, which they do not
share with the rest of society. In both science and in the humanities there
may be a considerable degree of common knowledge and shared
meaning. Various specialised groups may be more or less removed from
the general language as explained by Ammon. They may also be more
or less removed from each other because of different levels of mutual
dependency as explained by Whitley (2000). The symbol systems,
media, knowledge and meaning develop in a historical process. This
development reflects both adaptations to discoveries (internal
developments) and adaptations to external conditions. It should be
possible to develop the concept of the semantic distances as investigated
by Brooks (1995, 1998) and to consider distances between groups and
between queries and document representations.
JDOC (2) Different communities develop specific document types of more or less
58,4 different compositions. All elements in those documents are potential
subject access points in electronic retrieval (Hjùrland and Kyllesbech
Nielsen, 2001). The information value of a specific access point is
relative to the conventions used in a specific domain or tradition.
(3) The above mentioned discursive or epistemic communities are always
446 influenced by various epistemological norms and trends, which also
influence the social construction of symbolic systems, media,
knowledge, meaning and semantic distances. Such epistemologies are
probably the most general explanatory models available. So far
extremely little research has been done relating sublanguages to
epistemology or science studies (Hjùrland, 1998c, 2002; Skiba, 1998).
(4) When documents are merged in databases information about implicit
meanings from the prior contexts are lost. The larger the degree of
merging, the greater also the loss of implicit information. Systems for
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

knowledge organisation and IR should be developed to cope with this


loss of implicit information by making it explicit (database semantics).
(See also Hjùrland (1998c) and Maniez (1997).)
Conclusion: language and terminology are very important objects for IS
because they affect our thinking and thus the questions we put to databases as
well as the texts we search. IS needs a functional/pragmatic basis for studying
LSP. Terminology as an approach to domain studies in IS should be combined
with:
. bibliometrical studies;
. historical studies; and
. epistemological and critical studies.

Structures and institutions in scientific communication


A given discipline can be modelled as a system of institutions, services and
primary, secondary and tertiary information sources intermediating between
knowledge producers and knowledge users[10]. In Figure 2 the original
UNISIST model is modified by a dashed circle indicating a specific domain of
knowledge which imports information from other domains and exports
information to other domains as well as to the general public. The model is
going to be presented and discussed in more detail in a work in progress made
in cooperation with Jack Andersen and Trine Fjord Sùndergaard.
Based on Figure 2, I suggest the following main categories of literature:
primary, secondary and tertiary sources (from UNISIST). This should be
supplemented with source literature (a kind of special input especially known
in history and literary sciences, dictionaries (which can be classified as either
secondary or tertiary literature), incidental information sources (a concept
borrowed from Webb, 1986), and finally popularisations and textbooks, which
have the function to inform people outside the domain or to teach people to
Domain analysis
in information
science

447
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

Figure 2.
Institutions, actors and
documentary structures
in a discipline

become professionals in the field. These seven broad categories of documents


cover in my opinion most kinds of documents (sometimes termed ``genres'')
associated with scientific, social scientific, and humanistic domains. They do
not, however, cover mass media, organisational communications, and broader
communications connected to the public sphere. For such purposes broader
models such as that provided by Habermas (1989) are needed.
One important thing about such models is that they represent a systems
approach to scientific, professional and specialized communication. They
regard the functions of single kinds of documents, institutions and services in
JDOC relation to other existing documents, institutions and services and in relation to
58,4 the overall goals and functions of the domain.
A lot of empirical questions arise from such models, for example: how do
disciplines differ from each other? How are the systems of documents,
institutions and services organized in domain X? Many differences are of
course accidental, and thus less relevant to research. We should be interested in
448 investigating whether there are essential causes that can explain structures and
differences. Such essential causes may be related to the nature of different
domains. The scientific communication system may, for example, be more
formalized and structured compared to the humanities because there are more
objective criteria for knowledge. It is much more difficult in the humanities to
outsource information retrieval and reviewing, for which reason the
development of specialized database services, reviews etc. should be expected
to be less specialized in relation to the production of primary literature.
Many quantitative and qualitative data are needed to map such a structure
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

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.

Scientific cognition, expert knowledge and artificial intelligence


(AI)
Domain analysis is also a concept used in computer science. Prieto-Diaz (1990)
writes that domain analysis was introduced in the 1980s and is the process by
which information used in developing systems in a domain is identified,
captured and organised for the purpose of making it reusable when creating Domain analysis
new systems. Domain analysis is a method used in systems development and in information
software engineering (see e.g. Champeaux et al., 1993). It focuses on capturing science
both the commonalities and the variability of systems within a domain to
improve the efficiency of the development and maintenance of those systems.
The results of the analysis, collectively referred to as a domain model, are
captured for reuse in the future development of similar systems. There are 449
several ways to define ``domain''. For example, Berard (1992) gives two
characterizations:
(1) A collection of current and future (software) applications that share a set
of common characteristics.
(2) A well-defined set of characteristics that accurately, narrowly and
completely describe a family of problems for which computer
application solutions are being, and will be, sought.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

The founder of domain analysis in computer science is probably Neighbors


(1980), who wrote: ``The key to reusable software is captured in domain
analysis in that it stresses the reusability of analysis and design, not code''.
The concepts of domain and domain analysis are thus narrower in computer
science than the corresponding concepts in IS as discussed in this paper. There
is obvious overlap in interests, especially connected to problems related to
terminology and meaning. The basic view that a system or service should
reflect a domain (as opposed to ``mental structures'') is also the same. In LIS we
are not, however, limited to considering only the development of computer-
based systems, but have a broader need to understand different disciplines and
user groups from more humanistic and sociological perspectives.
Lykke Nielsen (2000a, b) discusses domain analysis as a method in
thesaurus construction. I think that she may be using domain analysis in a
sense different from mine. I have discussed her approach at some length in
Hjùrland (2002). To me, the data collection methods she used are known in AI
as methods of knowledge elicitation (see Cooke, 1994). Her approach may,
however, be considered a contribution to IS in other ways.
The fields of AI and cognitive sciences have historically been related to and
dominated by individualistic rather than social ways of thinking. There are
many different kinds of investigations into how researchers, experts and
ordinary people think in and about different domains of knowledge. Some of
this research is related to the attempt to build expert systems with artificial
intelligence. Such research has mostly been done with a mechanical view of
human thinking, neglecting the historical and cultural aspects of human
cognition. An influential text with presentation of fundamental problems is
Sowa (1999). Within psychology Hoffman (1992) introduces research about
human expertise.
A tendency to broaden this cognitive perspective and make it more social
seems to be developing. Within AI, Timpka (1995) is doing research on clinical
cognition. Under the label ``cognition's context'' he introduces sociological
JDOC perspectives on cognition. Such sociological perspectives seem to be more
58,4 relevant for domain analysis compared with traditional individualistic
perspectives. However, we should always keep in mind that the goals of LIS are
not the same as the goals of AI. In LIS a central goal is to provide users with
information which can help evaluate the validity of different knowledge claims.
To help the user establish his own view on some issue based on studies of all
450 available arguments is extremely important in LIS. This is very different from
constructing a system performing certain knowledge based tasks, which is the
goal of research in AI. Therefore, other approaches to expert cognition may be
more relevant.
An example of a sociological study of cognition is Andersen (1999), who
studied the political attitudes and cognitive convictions among Danish social
science researchers. That is, he studied the relation between individual (micro)
processes and collective (macro) processes and pointed out the hermeneutical
relation between these levels. This is an example of a study which may be less
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

relevant for AI, but in my opinion is relevant for LIS.


Conclusion: various forms of domain analysis have been carried out in
computer science and related fields. They offer useful techniques, which may
supplement other approaches to domain analysis in IS. Dominating tendencies
have, however, been guided by theories of cognition which have neglected the
social, cultural and historical nature of cognitive processes. Also the aim of LIS
may be different from the aim of computer science. IS should be more open to
alternative views, more reflective and meta-oriented and demonstrate gaps and
uncertainties in knowledge to users. This is very different from making, for
example, an expert system that performs optimally by reflecting some
generalized cognitive models.

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)

provides mental models of a domain or methods for knowledge


elicitation in order to produce expert systems.
Together these 11 approaches form a perspective that is unique for information
science. It should also be obvious that this perspective offers practically and
theoretically relevant investigations. Research in information science
combining several of the above mentioned approaches will, in my view,
strengthen the identity of IS and strengthen the relationship between research
and practice in IS. Because this approach has been implicit in much earlier
work, it should make the field more coherent with its own history and provide a
deeper and more satisfactory stock of knowledge. It may also provide a better
interdisciplinary contact and exchange for fields like sociology, linguistics and
philosophy. It would, in my opinion, be an appropriate goal for IS to develop
these 11 approaches (and possibly new ones) further, which would mean
strengthening general information science. It would also be an appropriate goal
to produce domain analytic journals, books and educational programs in all
areas of knowledge, which would mean strengthening specialised IS. As is the
case in other fields like translation and education, the specialised field of IS
may be able to occupy more people than the general field.

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)

Gopferich, S. (1995), Textsorten in Naturwissenschaft und Technik; pragmatische Typologie,


Kontrastierung, Translation, (Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 27), G. Narr,
TuÈbingen.
Grindsted, A. and Wagner, J. (Eds) (1992), Communication for Specific Purposes ±
Fachsprachliche Kommunikation, (Kommunikation und Institution 21) English and
German. Papers from a Meeting held August 1990, at the Copenhagen Business School,
G. Narr, TuÈbingen.
Grishman, R. and Kittredge, R. (Eds) (1986), Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains:
Sublanguage Description and Processing, Workshop on Sublanguage Description and
Processing, 1984 in New York University, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Haas, S.W. (1996), ``Sublanguages and the automatic identification of sublanguage terms'', in
Kent, A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Vol. 58, Marcel Dekker,
New York, NY, pp. 302-10.
Haas, S.W. (1997), ``Disciplinary variation in automatic sublanguage term identification'', Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 67-79.
Haas, S.W. and He, S. (1993), ``Toward the automatic identification of sublanguage vocabulary'',
Information Processing & Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 721-32.
Habermas, J. (1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere; An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society, (translated from Burgen, T. (1962), Strukturwandel der
Offentlichkeit; Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der buÈrgerlichen Gesellschaft (1962) by
Thomas Burger with the assistance of Lawrence, F. (Studies in Contemporary German
Social Thought), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, B.M. (1970), The Subject Bibliography of the Social Sciences, (Special Bibliography, Special
Librarianship), Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Harding, S. (1998), Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Harris, Z. (1968), Mathematical Structures of Language, (Interscience tracts in pure and applied
mathematics, No. 21), Interscience Publishers, New York, NY.
Hirschman, L. and Sager, N. (1982), ``Automatic information formatting of a medical
sublanguage'', in Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (Eds), Sublanguage: Studies of Language
in Restricted Semantic Domains, W. de Gruyter, New York, NY.
Hjùrland, B. (1988), ``Information retrieval in psychology'', Behavioral and Social Sciences Domain analysis
Librarian, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 39-64.
in information
Hjùrland, B. (1991), ``Det kognitive paradigme i biblioteks- og informationsvidenskaben (The
cognitive view of library and information science)'', Biblioteksarbejde (in Danish), Vol. 33, science
pp. 5-37.
Hjùrland, B. (1993), ``Toward a new horizon in information science (IS): domain-analysis'', oral
presentation given at ASIS 56's Annual Meeting in Columbus, Ohio, 25 October, abstracts 457
published on p. 290 in: ASIS '93. Proceedings of the 56th ASIS Annual Meeting, 1993,
Vol. 30, Americal Society for Information Science & Learned Information, Medford, NJ.
Hjùrland, B. (1997), Information Seeking and Subject Representationl An Activity-theoretical
Approach to Information Science, Greenwood Press, London.
Hjùrland, B. (1998a), ``The classification of psychology: a case study in the classification of a
knowledge field'', Knowledge Organization, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 162-201.
Hjùrland, B. (1998b), ``Theory and metatheory of information science: a new interpretation'',
Journal of Documentation, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 606-21.
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

Hjùrland, B. (1998c), ``Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics'', Knowledge


Organization, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2, pp. 16-31.
Hjùrland, B. (2000), ``Review of Wallerstein (1996)'', Open the Social Sciences, Report of the
Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences, Stanford University
Press, Stanford, CA.
Hjùrland, B. (2002), ``Epistemology and the sociocognitive perspective in information science'',
inargural lecture 14 May 2001 at the installation of professors at the Royal School of
Library and Information Science in Copenhagen, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 4.
Hjùrland, B. and Albrechtsen, H. (1995), ``Toward a new horizon in information science: domain
analysis'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 400-25.
Hjùrland, B. and Kyllesbech Nielsen, L. (2001), ``Subject access points in electronic retrieval'',
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 35, pp. 3-51.
Hoffmann, L., Kalverkaemper, H. and Wiegand, H. (Eds) (1997), Fachsprachen/Languages for
Special Purposes: Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und
Terminologiewissenschaft/An International Handbook of Special Languages and
Terminology Research, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin.
Hoffman, R.R. (Ed.) (1992), The Psychology of Expertise. Cognitive Research and Empirical AI,
Springer Press, New York, NY.
Hoselitz, B.F. (Ed.) (1970), A Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences, Free Press, New York, NY.
Hull, D.L. (1998), ``Taxonomy'', Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, Routledge,
London.
Hvari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (2001), ``A dynamic framework for classifying
information systems development methodologies and approaches'', Journal of
Management Information System, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-218.
Inchaurralde, C. (Ed.) (1994), Perspectives on Semantics and Specialised Languages, papers
presented at the Susanne Hubner Seminar (1993), Departamento de Filologia Inglesa y
Alemana, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza.
Jarvis, W.E. (1985), ``Integrating subject pathfinders into online catalogs'', Database, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 65-7.
JDOC Jauss, H.R. (1987), Die Theorie der Rezeption (RuÈckschau auf ihre unerkannte Vorgeschichte,
Universitetsverlag Konstanz GmbH, Konstanz.
58,4
Kapoun, J.M. (1995), ``Re-thinking the library pathfinder'', College and Undergraduate Libraries,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
Kendrick, P. and Zafran, E.L. (Eds) (2001), Indexing Specialties: Law, Information Today,
Medford, NJ.
458 Kim, Y. (1998), Sensitivity of Entry Vocabulary Modules to Subdomains, Technical Report,
available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/subdomain.html
Kim, Y. (2000), Evaluation of the Sensitivity of Subdomain in EVM Dictionary Approach,
available at: metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/papers/subdomain00.html
Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J. (1982), Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic
Domains, (Foundations of communication), W. de Gruyter, New York, NY.
KovaÂts, E.S. (1977), ``Non-indexed citedness'', Current Science, Vol. 72 No. 10, pp. 705-7.
Kretzenbacher, H.L. (1990), Rekapitulation; Texstrategien der Zusammenfassung von
wissenschaftlichen Fachtexten, Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 11, G. Narr,
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)

Roberts, N. (1977), Use of Social Science Literature, Butterworths, London.


Sandison, A. (1989), ``Thinking about citation analysis'', Journal of Documentation, Vol. 45,
pp. 59-64.
Saracevic, T. (1975), ``Relevance: a review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in
information science'', Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 26,
pp. 321-43.
Schaeder, B. and Bergenholtz, H. (Eds) (1994), Fachlexikographie; Fachwissen und seine
RepraÈsentation in WoÈrterbuchern, Forum fur Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 23, G. Narr,
TuÈbingen.
SchroÈder, H. (Ed) (1991), Subject-oriented Texts. Language for Special Puirposes and Text Theory,
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, NY.
Seglen, P.O. (1992), ``The skewness of science'', Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 628-38.
Seglen, P.O. (1994), ``Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact'', Journal of
the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Seglen, P.O. (1996a), ``Bruk av siteringer og tidsskrift-impaktfaktor til forskningsevaluering'',
Biblioteksarbejde, Vol. 17 No. 48, pp. 27-34.
Seglen, P.O. (1996b), ``Quantification of scientific article contents'', Scientometrics, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 355-66.
Seglen, P.O. (1997a), ``Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research
quality'', Allergy, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1050-6.
Seglen, P.O. (1997b), ``Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating
research'', British Medical Journal, Vol. 314 No. 7079, pp. 498-502.
Seglen, P.O. (1998), ``Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of
research'', Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 224-9.
Seglen, P.O. and Aksnes, D.W. (2000), ``Scientific productivity and group size: a bibliometric
analysis of Norwegian microbiological research'', Scientometrics, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 125-43.
Skiba, R. (1998), Fachsprachenforschung in wissenschaftstheoretischer Perspektive, Forum fur
Fachsprachen-Forschung, Bd. 47, G. Narr, TuÈbingen.
Soergel, D. (1999), ``The rise of ontologies or the reinvention of classification'', Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 1119-20.
Somers, H.L. (Ed.) (1996), Terminology, LSP, and Translation; Studies in Language Engineering Domain analysis
in Honour of Juan C. Sager, Benjamins translation library, Vol. 18, J. Benjamins Pub. Co.,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA. in information
Sowa, J.F. (1999), Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational science
Foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA.
Spark Jones, K. (1992), ``Thesaurus'', in Shapiro, S.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence,
Vol. 2, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 1605-13. 461
Spark Jones, K. and Kay, M. (1973), Linguistics and Information Science, Academic Press,
New York, NY.
Suominen, V. (2001), ``Hermeneutics of information management vs. hermeneutics of
metadocumentation/librarianship: an ethically, politically and culturally necessary and
inevitable distinction to be made'', paper presented at SCARLID, 12-13 December, Oulu.
Summerville, L. (1990), ``Cataloging, classification, and pedagogy: toward the catalog as a guide
to the literature: reaction'', Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 83-8.
Surles, R.H. (1989), ``Legal research guides as bibliographic efforts'', Legal Reference Services
Quarterly, Vol. 9 Nos 1/2, pp. 43-55.
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)

Documentation 65:4, 578-591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


45. Peter J. Wild, Matt D. Giess, Chris A. McMahon. 2009. Describing engineering documents with faceted
approaches. Journal of Documentation 65:3, 420-445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Michela Montesi, Patricia Lago. 2008. Software engineering article types: An analysis of the literature.
Journal of Systems and Software 81, 1694-1714. [CrossRef]
47. Yeong-Jun Yoo. 2008. Establishing Facet for Classifying Theological Terms. Journal of the Korean Society
for Library and Information Science 42, 259-279. [CrossRef]
48. Steven E. Wallis. 2008. Emerging order in CAS theory: mapping some perspectives. Kybernetes 37:7,
1016-1029. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Mike Thelwall, Paul Wouters, Jenny Fry. 2008. Information-centered research for large-scale analyses of
new information sources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59:10.1002/
asi.v59:9, 1523-1527. [CrossRef]
50. Michela Montesi, Trilce Navarrete. 2008. Classifying web genres in context: A case study documenting the
web genres used by a software engineer. Information Processing & Management 44, 1410-1430. [CrossRef]
51. Denise Morado Nascimento, Regina Maria Marteleto. 2008. Social field, domains of knowledge and
informational practice. Journal of Documentation 64:3, 397-412. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Michela Montesi, John Mackenzie Owen. 2008. Research journal articles as document genres: exploring
their role in knowledge organization. Journal of Documentation 64:1, 143-167. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
53. Ok nam Park, Sam Gyun Oh. 2008. A new design structure for a classification system in Korean Traditional
Performing Arts. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 45, 1-13.
[CrossRef]
54. Carole L. Palmer, Melissa H. Cragin. 2008. Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology 42, 163-212. [CrossRef]
55. Jack Andersen. 2008. The concept of genre in information studies. Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology 42, 339-367. [CrossRef]
56. Luigina Vileno. 2007. From paper to electronic, the evolution of pathfinders: a review of the literature.
Reference Services Review 35:3, 434-451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Lyn Robinson. 2007. Impact of digital information resources in the toxicology literature. Aslib Proceedings
59:4/5, 342-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Jarkko Kari, Jenna Hartel. 2007. Information and higher things in life: Addressing the pleasurable and
the profound in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
58:10.1002/asi.v58:8, 1131-1147. [CrossRef]
59. Joseph M. Kavulya. 2007. Training of library and information science (LIS) professionals in Kenya. Library
Review 56:3, 208-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Chaim Zins. 2007. Knowledge map of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology 58:10.1002/asi.v58:4, 526-535. [CrossRef]
61. Ilkka MäkinenFrom Marginal to Excellence: The Development of the Research in Information Studies in
Finland 155-174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
62. Birger Hjørland. 2007. Semantics and knowledge organization. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology 41, 367-405. [CrossRef]
63. Tanja Jevremov, Dejan Pajic, Pero Sipka. 2007. Structure of personality psychology based on cocitation
Downloaded by USP At 12:37 21 March 2016 (PT)

analysis of prominent authors. Psihologija 40, 329-343. [CrossRef]


64. Cristina Arciniegas, Jo WoodCollaboration Networks Revealed by IJGISAuthors 547-553. [CrossRef]
65. Yeong-Jun Yoo. 2006. Theoretical Study on Domain Analysis. Journal of the Korean Society for Library
and Information Science 40, 139-162. [CrossRef]
66. Brenda Dervin, CarrieLynn D. Reinhard, Zack Y. KerrThe Burden of Being Special: Adding Clarity about
Communicating to Researching and Serving Users, Special and Otherwise 233-269. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF]
67. Sheng-Cheng Huang. 2006. A semiotic view of information: Semiotics as a foundation of LIS research in
information behavior. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 43, 1-17.
[CrossRef]
68. EunKyung Chung, Samantha K. Hastings. 2006. A conception-based approach to automatic subject term
assignment for scientific journal articles. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 43, 1-21. [CrossRef]
69. Donald O. Case. 2006. Information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 40,
293-327. [CrossRef]
70. Tove Faber Frandsen. 2005. Journal interaction. Journal of Documentation 61:3, 385-401. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
71. Jens-Erik Mai. 2005. Analysis in indexing: document and domain centered approaches. Information
Processing & Management 41, 599-611. [CrossRef]
72. Birger Hjørland. 2005. Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science. Journal
of Documentation 61:1, 130-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Sanna Talja, Kimmo Tuominen, Reijo Savolainen. 2005. “Isms” in information science: constructivism,
collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation 61:1, 79-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Olof Sundin, Jenny Johannisson. 2005. Pragmatism, neo‐pragmatism and sociocultural theory. Journal of
Documentation 61:1, 23-43. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Jesper W. Schneider, Pia Borlund. 2004. Introduction to bibliometrics for construction and maintenance
of thesauri. Journal of Documentation 60:5, 524-549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Birger Hjørland. 2004. Domain Analysis: A Socio-Cognitive Orientation for Information Science
Research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 30, 17-21. [CrossRef]
77. Torkild Thellefsen. 2004. The fundamental sign. Semiotica 2004. . [CrossRef]
78. Elena Maceviciute, Osvaldas Janonis. 2004. Conceptions of Bibliography in the Russian Federation: The
Russian Phenomenon of Bibliographic Theory. Libri 54. . [CrossRef]
79. Nancy A. Van House. 2004. Science and technology studies and information studies. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology 38, 1-86. [CrossRef]
80. Sanna Talja, Hanni Maula. 2003. Reasons for the use and non‐use of electronic journals and databases.
Journal of Documentation 59:6, 673-691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Maria Pinto. 2003. Abstracting/abstract adaptation to digital environments: research trends. Journal of
Documentation 59:5, 581-608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Trine Fjordback Søndergaard, Jack Andersen, Birger Hjørland. 2003. Documents and the communication
of scientific and scholarly information: Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Proceedings of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology 40, 516-516. [CrossRef]
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]

You might also like