Search results

The subject of the article is the concept of augmented intelligence, which constitutes a further stage in the development of research on artificial intelligence. This is a new phenomenon that has rarely been considered in the subject literature so far, which may be interesting for the fields of social sciences and humanities. The aim is to describe the features of this technology and determine the practical and ethical problems associated with its implementation in libraries.

The method of literature review was used. Systematic searches according to specific questions were carried out using the Scopus and Web of Science scientific databases, as well as Google Scholar and the LISTA abstract database.

The results established that the issue of augmented intelligence has barely been discussed in the field of librarianship. Although this technology may be interesting as a new area of librarian research and as a new framework for designing innovative services, deep ethical consideration is necessary before this technology is introduced in libraries.

The article deals with some of the newest technologies available, and this topic is generally very rarely discussed in scientific publications in either the social sciences or humanities. Therefore, due to the limited availability of materials, the findings presented in the article are primarily of a conceptual nature. The aim is to present this topic from the perspective of librarianship and to create a starting point for further discussion on the ethical aspects of introducing new technologies in libraries.

The results can be widely used in practice as a framework for the implementation of augmented intelligence in libraries.

The article can help to facilitate the debate on the role of implementing new technologies in libraries.

The problem of augmented intelligence is very rarely addressed in the subject literature in the field of library and information science.

Research consistently shows that non-scientific bias, equity, and diversity trainings do not work, and often make bias and diversity problems worse. Despite these widespread failures, there is considerable reason for hope that effective, meaningful DEI efforts can be developed. One approach in particular, the bias habit-breaking training, has 15 years of experimental evidence demonstrating its widespread effectiveness and efficacy.

This article discusses bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts from the author’s perspective as a scientist–practitioner – the author draws primarily on the scientific literature, but also integrates insights from practical experiences working in DEI. The author provides a roadmap for adapting effective, evidence-based approaches from other disciplines (e.g. cognitive-behavioral therapy) into the DEI context and review evidence related to the bias habit-breaking training, as one prominent demonstration of a scientifically-validated approach that effects lasting, meaningful improvements on DEI issues within both individuals and institutions.

DEI trainings fail due to widespread adoption of the information deficit model, which is well-known as a highly ineffective approach. Empowerment-based approaches, in contrast, are highly promising for making meaningful, lasting changes in the DEI realm. Evidence indicates that the bias habit-breaking training is effective at empowering individuals as agents of change to reduce bias, create inclusion, and promote equity, both within themselves and the social contexts they inhabit.

In contrast to the considerable despair and pessimism around DEI efforts, the present analysis provides hope and optimism, and an empirically-validated path forward, to develop and test DEI approaches that empower individuals as agents of change.

Many of today’s information and technology systems and environments facilitate inquiry, learning, consciousness-raising and knowledge-building. Such platforms include e-learning systems which have learning, education and/or training as explicit goals or objectives. They also include search engines, social media platforms, video-sharing platforms, and knowledge sharing environments deployed for work, leisure, inquiry, and personal and professional productivity. The new journal, Information and Learning Sciences, aims to advance our understanding of human inquiry, learning and knowledge-building across such information, e-learning, and socio-technical system contexts.

This article introduces the journal at its launch under new editorship in January, 2019. The article, authored by the journal co-editors and all associate editors, explores the lineage of scholarly undertakings that have contributed to the journal's new scope and mission, which includes past and ongoing scholarship in the following arenas: Digital Youth, Constructionism, Mutually Constitutive Ties in Information and Learning Sciences, and Searching-as-Learning.

The article offers examples of ways in which the two fields stand to enrich each other towards a greater holistic advancement of scholarship. The article also summarizes the inaugural special issue contents from the following contributors: Caroline Haythornthwaite; Krista Glazewski and Cindy Hmelo-Silver; Stephanie Teasley; Gary Marchionini; Caroline R. Pitt; Adam Bell, Rose Strickman and Katie Davis; Denise Agosto; Nicole Cooke; and Victor Lee.

The article, this special issue, and the journal in full, are among the first formal and ongoing publication outlets to deliberately draw together and facilitate cross-disciplinary scholarship at this integral nexus. We enthusiastically and warmly invite continued engagement along these lines in the journal’s pages, and also welcome related, and wholly contrary points of view, and points of departure that may build upon or debate some of the themes we raise in the introduction and special issue contents.

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss Luciano Floridi’s 2019 book The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design, the latest instalment in his philosophy of information (PI) tetralogy, particularly with respect to its implications for library and information studies (LIS).

Nine scholars with research interests in philosophy and LIS read and responded to the book, raising critical and heuristic questions in the spirit of scholarly dialogue. Floridi responded to these questions.

Floridi’s PI, including this latest publication, is of interest to LIS scholars, and much insight can be gained by exploring this connection. It seems also that LIS has the potential to contribute to PI’s further development in some respects.

Floridi’s PI work is technical philosophy for which many LIS scholars do not have the training or patience to engage with, yet doing so is rewarding. This suggests a role for translational work between philosophy and LIS.

The book symposium format, not yet seen in LIS, provides forum for sustained, multifaceted and generative dialogue around ideas.