Search results

The main purpose of the paper is to offer a personal view on the development of documentation/information and documentation (IuD) in Germany, while pointing out the need to further investigate the specific features of its development paths. The methodology is based on critical review of the available literature sources in the German language.

The paper uses the method of critical review of published documents in journals (especially in Nachrichten für Dokumentation), books and reports of state and provincial administrations that are directly related to monitoring and/or encouraging the development of the young field of documentation.

The paper offers a review and interpretation of the most significant development phases, the contributions of individuals and the influence of the official state and information policy based on the consulted sources.

This research is limited to the literature written in German language.

The paper could be of interest to researchers and professionals who are interested in the development of documentation.

The paper covers the period after the World War II until the end of 1980s that is especially interesting from the social point of view in divided Germany.

To the author’s knowledge, there is no comprehensive history of documentation in German-speaking countries written in English. This paper is the result of a research project started three years ago with colleagues from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, that aims to cover all phases of the appearance and development of information science in German-speaking countries and could be understood as a kind of introduction to papers planned to follow.

The broader context in the last twenty years awareness of the information and documentation problems of the social sciences has grown, but almost as if by stealth. During that period there have been significant developments for practice, organization and research in social science information, but knowledge of these has remained largely confined to small groups of specialists closely associated with them. In the main it has been library and information developments in science and technology that have captured the interest and attention of the majority of professionals and specialists as such: for example, the development of computer‐based citation indexes; the introduction of the computer database as a successor to the printed secondary journal; the development of online search facilities and associated software and retrieval techniques; the exploitation of telecommunications and computers to create new information technology, leading to alternative means of interpersonal communication, the possibilities of electronic journals and a vision of the paperless society. This situation is hardly surprising since science and technology provide the productive base for advanced societies.

A statistical analysis is made of the professional literature of librarians and information scientists in an attempt to uncover the patterns of information flow and to evaluate the abstracting services provided for information workers. Citation analysis of some English language information science journals throws light on the principal sources used by British and American information scientists and the linguistic and national biases in the citations given. The growth of the subject matter published in the field of information science is displayed. Five abstracting services are evaluated. Their scope in terms of the language, country of origin, subject matter and format of the material selected and abstracted is determined. Coverage is assessed in comparison with three bibliographies in this subject area. Currency is determined from NRLSI acquisition dates. Key journals are found from productivity analysis of the abstracted journals. Conclusions are drawn as to the adequacy of the present services and suggestions made for possible improvements.

John Desmond Bernal (1901‐1970) was one of the most eminent scientists of his generation; he also became, in mid‐twentieth century Britain, an important political figure – the leading public spokesperson of “red” science. One remarkable but hitherto underexplored aspect of his career is a lifelong interest in scientific communication, documentation and information science. Utilising records in the Bernal archive in Cambridge, UK, this paper assesses Bernal's information career. It explores Bernal's initial interest in scientific documentation in the 1930s and examines his blueprint for the reform of scientific communication in Britain, advanced in Bernal's 1939 work, The Social Function of Science. It details his subsequent role, in 1945‐1949, as figurehead of a co‐ordinated but unsuccessful left‐wing campaign to establish an Institute of Scientific Information in Britain. It analyses Bernal's later theoretical papers in information science, and describes his support, in the 1950s and 1960s, for an emerging information profession. Bernal, it concludes, can justifiably be regarded as a major influence on twentieth century information science, above all because of his pioneering focus on the social dimensions of the discipline.

The convergence of librarianship and information science to form library and information science (LIS) is seen as a recent phenomenon, with the term “information science” originally focused on the application of computers to library operations and services. LIS as a science and multidisciplinary field applies the practice and perspective of information with the aim of answering important questions related to the activities of a target group. As a science, LIS is more than a collection of facts to be memorised or techniques to be mastered but is instead an inquiry carried out by people who raise questions for which answers are unknown and who have gained confidence in their ability to reach conclusions, albeit tentative ones, through research, experiment and careful thought sharpened by the open criticism of others. What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study called LIS which differs from Cronin ' s (2004) conclusion that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. Like any other science, LIS continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines.

To understand LIS, this paper thoroughly reviewed the literature by paying attention to the genesis of the terms “information”, “documentation”, “science” and “librarianship”, and then the interdisciplinary nature of library science and information science.

The differences between librarianship and information science are an indication that there are two different fields in a strong interdisciplinary relation, rather than one being a special case of the other. LIS has grown to be a scientific discipline, knowledge and a process that allows abandoning or modifying previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence. Therefore, like any other science, LIS is a science and discipline in its own right that continues to emerge, evolve, transform and dissipate in the ongoing conversation of disciplines.

What is described here is a dynamic and changing field of study and a science called LIS that differs from Cronin ' s (2004) assessment that library science or LIS is neither a science nor a discipline. The originality of the paper is rooted in a growing discussion to understand the relevance and appreciate the continued existence of LIS as a science and a field of study.

In this article, the author discusses works from the French Documentation Movement in the 1940s and 1950s with regard to how it formulates bibliographic classification systems as documents. Significant writings by Suzanne Briet, Éric de Grolier and Robert Pagès are analyzed in the light of current document-theoretical concepts and discussions.

Conceptual analysis.

The French Documentation Movement provided a rich intellectual environment in the late 1940s and early 1950s, resulting in original works on documents and the ways these may be represented bibliographically. These works display a variety of approaches from object-oriented description to notational concept-synthesis, and definitions of classification systems as isomorph documents at the center of politically informed critique of modern society.

The article brings together historical and conceptual elements in the analysis which have not previously been combined in Library and Information Science literature. In the analysis, the article discusses significant contributions to classification and document theory that hitherto have eluded attention from the wider international Library and Information Science research community. Through this, the article contributes to the currently ongoing conceptual discussion on documents and documentality.

ASLIB – the Association of Special Libraries and Information Bureaux – was founded in 1924 with the aim of co‐ordinating the activities of specialist information services in the UK. This article seeks to present a new history of the first quarter‐century of the Association.

This is a historical study based substantially on two collections of primary documents: ASLIB's own records, held at Aslib Headquarters, London; and the papers of Edith Ditmas, held at the National Library of Wales.

The paper explores the origins of ASLIB, and its roots in the “science lobby” of the time; it then traces the development of ASLIB as both a “national intelligence service” for science, commerce and industry, and as a quasi‐professional association with international significance. It concludes that the first of these two functions was the Association's fundamental raison d'être.

The research is limited to study of ASLIB in the period 1924‐1950 and an obvious continuation would be a history of “corporate” ASLIB (1950‐1997). More generally, the paper reveals that the history of UK documentation and information science in the twentieth century is underexplored: there is scope for future research focused on key pioneers and ideas, as well as institutions such as ASLIB.

As far as is known, this is the first historical study of ASLIB to be based on contemporary records: it should therefore be of value to both historians of information and library science and practitioners interested in their professional heritage.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the following questions: what is the origin of the concepts of documents and documentation? Are there a need for these concepts in every culture? Who gives the terms for their definitions, and what are the consequences of different terminology?

The authors use interdisciplinary methodology, combining document and information theory and Sámi linguistics. The aim of this paper is to discuss documentation from the perspective of the Sámi, with some examples from other indigenous groups.

Oral accounts, legends, traditional songs and traces in the landscape are seen as documents and documentation in Sámi and other indigenous cultures. The paper presents different theories in order to interpret and understand the specific information content in indigenous forms of documentation.

Indigenous ways of documentation have been accepted as valid proof of ownership or the right to extensive use of land resources. When no written records exist, oral testimonies and the landscape itself can be seen as documenting traditional use and has been accepted as evidence in high courts in Norway and Canada. The authors have also seen that the rich Sámi snow terminology is used as concepts in different fields of natural sciences.

The Sámi understanding of the concepts of document and documentation contributes to the traditional information and documentation disciplines by introducing ways of seeing natural phenomenon as fundamental forms of information.

This issue attempts to provide a general background for exploring the increasingly complex world of abstracting and indexing services. It is also an indication of the involvement of libraries in the total development of abstracting and indexing services. The first paper by Adams and Baker discusses one of the basic problems in this area which is the proper structuring of subjects, for inclusion in any service. The relationship between ‘discipline’‐and ‘mission’‐oriented services is covered, and in this chapter a common base is reached for future discussion. The National Federation of Science Abstracting and Indexing Services appears to have collapsed into a fairly passive role, but the editor has presented some informative notes which can act as a basis for a more definitive report. Stella Keenan provides a valuable contribution to the background of abstracting and indexing services in the physical sciences and Louise Schultz discusses new developments in the area of the biological sciences, demonstrating the complexities of providing access in a specialized scientific area. The paper by Tate and Wood is entitled ‘Libraries and Abstracting and Indexing Services—a study in interdependency’. Although, based primarily on their experiences at ‘Chemical Abstracts’, they bring out the relationship between libraries and specialized services. Another introduction to the Science Citation Index is given by Morton Malin, from the Institute for Scientific Information, bringing out the interests of librarians in this new indexing tool. Charles Bernier discusses the procedures and problems of production of subject indexes, based on his own extensive experience. He covers problems of term selection and correction in addition to the physical preparation of copy. James Wood, Head Librarian of Chemical Abstracts Service, proposes a co‐operative venture between librarians and abstracts producers in a comprehensive list of periodicals for chemistry and chemical engineering. The final paper by Andrew Aimes, senior officer of the COSATI staff, gives general guidelines and information basic to the theory behind national information systems, referring to the ‘System Study of Abstracting and Indexing in the United States’, prepared by SDC under contract to COSATI.