Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide context and raise interest for the term hyperdocumentation in the context of document theory.

The origin of the term is established through etymology and bibliographical research. The term is contextualized with conceptual research on the nature of documents and the construction of social reality through documentation. Prominent uses of the term outside of traditional research on documents is investigated.

The authors describe what hyperdocumentation translates to in terms of experience as of today (the different types of hyperdocumentation). Comparison to the initial definition underlines a key issue: the absence of a social contract that would define hyperdocumentality.

This paper presents novel research on the term hyperdocumentation, including its origin before hypertext, its use outside of traditional document science and its implications for document theory.

The purpose of the paper is to analyze how the Neo-documentalist movement, initiated in 1996 by Michael Buckland, Boyd Rayward and Niels Lund, has evolved in its 27 years history, how the choice of documentation as name of the new program in Tromsø has made a difference in the LIS field and how different documentation scholars around the world has participated and approached the movement until now.

The paper has approached the “Neo-documentalist movement” in a historical perspective from 1996 to 2023 discussing what difference does the choice of a concept make, when the concept of documentation is chosen instead of information in the name of a program and for the general discussion of the object of an academic field like Library and Information Science.

The analysis shows that it did make a difference to choose the concept of documentation as name of the program in Tromsø and the Neo-documentalist movement contributed to a new focus and discussion of the informative objects, the documents and their creation, not only in Tromsø, but in different parts of the world across linguistic borders.

The paper is original by the fact that it is the first time that the neo documentalist movement has been reviewed on a global scale across linguistic barriers. It has value by a discussion of the ways in which a choice of concept matter in relation to defining a field and the research agenda.