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.

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.

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.

This paper offers a definition of the core of information science, which encompasses most research in the field. The definition provides a unique identity for information science and positions it in the disciplinary universe.

After motivating the objective, a definition of the core and an explanation of its key aspects are provided. The definition is related to other definitions of information science before controversial discourse aspects are briefly addressed: discipline vs. field, science vs. humanities, library vs. information science and application vs. theory. Interdisciplinarity as an often-assumed foundation of information science is challenged.

Information science is concerned with how information is manifested across space and time. Information is manifested to facilitate and support the representation, access, documentation and preservation of ideas, activities, or practices, and to enable different types of interactions. Research and professional practice encompass the infrastructures – institutions and technology –and phenomena and practices around manifested information across space and time as its core contribution to the scholarly landscape. Information science collaborates with other disciplines to work on complex information problems that need multi- and interdisciplinary approaches to address them.

The paper argues that new information problems may change the core of the field, but throughout its existence, the discipline has remained quite stable in its central focus, yet proved to be highly adaptive to the tremendous changes in the forms, practices, institutions and technologies around and for manifested information.

This paper aims to examine the evolution of organizational identification (OI) research over the past five decades and its journey through various lenses, such as the collaborative network of authors, organizations and countries. The conceptual and intellectual structure of the construct is analysed via keywords and co-citation pattern mapping.

OI research is rising in popularity, with 118 papers published in 2019, 168 papers in 2020 and 15 publications till February 2021 in the Scopus database. The Scopus database is used to retrieve 55 years of OI studies published between 1965 and 2021. The free bibliometric tools Biblioshiny and VOSviewer are used to analyse 1,034 journal papers.

The result showed that R. Van Dick is the most influential author and the USA is the most involved country in OI research. As per the findings, the Journal of Organizational Behaviour published most of OI research and “corporate social responsibility” and “organizational commitment” seem to be the most used keywords alongside OI.

This study will be highly beneficial to OI researchers making their understanding about the construct better. It will also encourage social psychologists to understand the construct utility in workplace social welfare programmes. The research could also help governments and funding bodies to evaluate grant requests. Furthermore, researchers from countries with the lowest proportion of OI studies would be encouraged to spend more time and effort in this area. It will offer insight into international marketing and how individuals and stakeholders perceive and connect with an organization globally.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the important research studies carried out in the domain of OI in the international context. This is also one of the few studies which is spread out across different disciplinary areas including international marketing and management. The success of this paper can open avenues and influence future researchers to study in the OI and related cross-disciplinary areas of international management.

Michael Buckland's works have spanned theoretical, historical and practice-oriented foci and genre. This article focuses on some of his theoretical-historical works that span over 20 years, which demonstrate a reading and critique of European Documentation in terms of what has been called “Documentality.” This turn to a philosophy of information called “Documentality” marks the moment of “neo-documentation.” This article surveys this moment in Buckland's works by reading his articles “Information as Thing,” “What is a ‘Document’?”, and “Documentality Beyond Documents.” It shows the transition from Documentation as a philosophy of information as representation to Documentality as a philosophy of information as function and performance. Some concepts and works of Bruno Latour are used to illuminate this transition from Documentation to Documentality. Implications and further research directions are discussed at the end.

Conceptual and historical analyses.

The article follows a neo-documentalist transition in Buckland's works in the thinking of documents from an Otletian representationalist epistemology (“Documentation”) to a functionalist and performative epistemology (“Documentality”) for documents.

This is a conceptual work on a limited corpus in Buckland's oeuvre. It has a limited discussion of Documentality in the works of other writers, namely the works of Bernd Frohmann and Maurizio Ferraris.

The article points to historical shifts in the study of documents in Library and Information Science.

Documentality critically and materially studies documents in sociotechnical information management systems and elsewhere.

This work highlights the importance of the above works and the importance of the neo-documentalist perspective of Documentality.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Robert Pagès' 1948 conception of “auto-document” as a possible forerunner to the neo-documentalist conception of “documentality” as offered in Bernd Frohmann’s 2012 article “The Documentality of Mme Briet’s Antelope.”

This paper is conceptual and historical.

Robert Pagès' concept of the “auto-document” in his 1948 article proposed an understanding of documents that depends on the “uniqueness” of a document. His article proposed a post-Otletian theory of documents similar to a discussion of documents by Bernd Frohmann in 2012 with the concept of “documentality.” Further attention to Pagès work and to Frohmann’s works could result in new understandings of Briet’s works, could illuminate other works and authors understood as belonging to neo-documentation and could yield new understandings of documents and information from the perspective of documentality as a new philosophy of information and documents.

Further attention to Pagès' work and to Frohmann’s works could yield new understandings of documents and the relation of documentary types across natural and sociocultural domains and bring renewed attention to documentality as a new philosophy of information and documents.

Attention to these issues could broaden the study of documents and documentation, increase the historical understanding of Suzanne Briet’s works and bring light to other works in neo-documentation, particularly in regard to the concept of documentality as a new philosophy of documentation and information.

Attention to these issues could broaden the study of documents and documentation to include more broadly animal and other natural entities and our relationships to them. The works cited also illuminate an empirical science understanding of documents, documentary evidence and information.

This is one of the first papers commenting on Robert Pagès’ works and brings renewed attention to Bernd Frohmann’s works, as well as to neo-documentation and its concept and philosophy of documentality, as a new philosophy of information and documents.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the progress of documentation efforts of the country, India in conserving and preserving its intangible cultural heritage (ICH) elements. This paper also provides few suggestive measures to improve the effectiveness of documentation process.

Available published literature and the initiatives of galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM), government, nongovernment and individual efforts on documentation of ICH have been consulted to analyze the strength and growth.

The use of information and digital technologies can effectively document and enable the communication of ICH values at global level. Community participation plays a pivotal role in conserving the living heritage for its long-term sustainability and to transmit it to future generations. Mutual recognition and respect for cultural diversity, harmony in intercultural relations and sustainable development are essential in safeguarding ICH. More research on preserving the languages, scripts, living heritage and oral traditions has to be carried out. A knowledge modeling framework for ICH has to be developed.

This study evaluated various efforts of the country (India) pertained to the documentation of ICH. Further, it has analyzed only the information available in the published literature and the various information portals developed for this purpose.

In this study, prime consideration is given to discuss about various efforts on the documentation of ICH, which are generally transferred orally through generations. The recommendation aspect highlighted in the results may be useful for policymakers to effectively safeguard and improve the viability of ICH. The paper will also contribute to a better understanding of the problems and challenges faced while documenting the ICH and offer few suggestions to valorize the ICH through its Documentation.

This study deepens the understanding of various documentation efforts of the country. The study will also help those who have been involved in the documentation of ICH to take proper measures to enhance its visibility.