Search results

This article aims to explore anticipation from an ontological point of view and to analyze in particular some of Nicolai Hartmann's ideas.

The paper presents a conceptual analysis of an ontological theory of anticipation.

Analyzing philosophical problems related to “futures” and “anticipation”, to the framework of modal categories, and connecting Hartmann with Ludwig von Bertalanffy and comparing the outcome with some Artistotelian theses, offers a philosophical perspective on futures studies.

The “human” phenomenon of anticipation will be defined as possibly the only form of authentic anticipation, interpreted as a teleological act.

The result is obtained through the distinction, articulated for each level of reality, among different kinds of determination.

The current debate between two theoretical approaches in library and information science and knowledge organization (KO), the cognitive one and the sociological one, is addressed in view of their possible integration in a more general model. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Personal knowledge of individual users, as focused in the cognitive approach, and social production and use of knowledge, as focused in the sociological approach, are reconnected to the theory of levels of reality, particularly in the versions of Nicolai Hartmann and Karl R. Popper (three worlds). The notions of artefact and mentefact, as proposed in anthropological literature and applied in some KO systems, are also examined as further contributions to the generalized framework. Some criticisms to these models are reviewed and discussed.

Both the cognitive approach and the sociological approach, if taken in isolation, prove to be cases of philosophical monism as they emphasize a single level over the others. On the other hand, each of them can be considered as a component of a pluralist ontology and epistemology, where individual minds and social communities are but two successive levels in knowledge production and use, and are followed by a further level of “objectivated spirit”; this can in turn be analyzed into artefacts and mentefacts. While all these levels are relevant to information science, mentefacts and their properties are its most peculiar objects of study, which make it distinct from such other disciplines as psychology and sociology.

This analysis shows how existing approaches can benefit from additional notions contributed by levels theory, to develop more complete and accurate models of information and knowledge phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to explain why finding a theory for futures studies is such a demanding task. In particular, the paper paves the way towards a theoretical framework that goes beyond both positivism and anti‐positivism.

The paper discusses a network of mutually interlinked concepts, including: levels of reality; parts and wholes; causation; the multiplicity of times; anticipation; the thick present; and latents.

The paper presents the two main obstructions blocking the way towards a theory for futures studies (namely, the belief that the opposition between positivists and anti‐positivists is exhaustive, and the need for better connections with other sciences such as biology, cognitive science and the social sciences.

The paper discusses only one of the different threads in the elaboration of a theoretical basis for futures studies, namely the components closer to science.

A proper theory for futures studies will contribute to making them more robust and efficient.

The general framework presented by the paper extends well beyond the somewhat restricted field of futures studies and includes social and psychological sciences, together with biology.

The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS).

The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward.

It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the “sociological view” are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality.

The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

The different senses of the term information in physical, biological and social interpretations, and the possibility of connections between them, are addressed. Special attention is paid to Hofkirchner's Unified Theory of Information (UTI), proposing an integrated view in which the notion of information gets additional properties as one moves from the physical to the biological and the social realms. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

UTI is compared to other views of information, especially to two theories complementing several ideas of it: the theory of the hypertextual documental universe (“docuverse”) and the theory of integrative levels of reality. Two alternative applications of the complex of these three theories are discussed: a pragmatical, hermeneutic one, and a more ambitious realist, ontological one. The latter can be extended until considering information (“bit”) together with matter-energy (“it”) as a fundamental element in the world. Problems and opportunities with each view are discussed.

It is found that the common ground for all three theories is an evolutionary approach, paying attention to the phylogenetic connections between the different meanings of information.

Other theories of information, like Leontiev's, are not discussed as not especially related to the focus of the approach.

The paper builds on previously unnoticed affinities between different families of information-related theories, showing how each of them can provide fruitful complements to the other ones in clarifying the nature of information.

In this chapter, we present our findings and ideas regarding the involvement of external partners in challenge-based learning (CBL). In particular, we address two questions: Firstly, whether it is inevitably necessary and/or worthwhile to work with external partners. Secondly, in case external partners are to be included in CBL, what needs to be considered in order to make the cooperation rewarding for teachers and students. Therefore, we identify different roles external partners may assume as well as benefits and problems that can arise from this in terms of the implementation and learning process. Our insights are based on qualitative expert interviews with five teachers and three students from courses with and without external partners at the Hamburg University of Technology (a subsample of our larger quantitative and qualitative study on CBL implementation within the ECIU), our own experience in teaching CBL, as well as on literature reviews. Our findings suggest that roles and functions of external partners are various: They may come into play as a training partner, as a challenge provider, as an expert in the field and/or as a feedback provider. They may take over several roles at the same time or just one out of it; they may be defined as part of the team of learners or join in at special occasions only. While there are certain advantages unique to having external partners, some roles may also be covered without (permanently) involving externals. In any case, working with externals requires continuous communication and negotiation regarding role expectations, positions, and activities throughout the process. To facilitate this, the chapter introduces a model to systematically analyze and balance interactions with external partners.

NOT for a long time have books and libraries featured in the correspondence columns of The Times and other newspapers as regularly as they have in 1960. Earlier in the year Sir Alan Herbert's lending rights' scheme had a good run, and we have clearly not yet heard the last of it. Indeed, a Private Member's bill on the subject is to have its second reading in Parliament on December 9th. More recently, the Herbert proposals have had a by‐product in the shape of bound paperbacks, and a correspondence ensued which culminated in Sir Allen Lane's fifth‐of‐November firework banning hard‐covered Penguins for library use.