Search results

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.

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 article is to contribute to a discussion about the future of librarianship.

An analytical framework is used to discuss the future of libraries. The framework is based on current trends in contemporary librarianship and is used as a way of structuring predictions about the future of librarianship. Special attention is given to public libraries and academic libraries.

Libraries are seen moving from a traditional situation with a high degree of constitutive documentality and internal legitimacy with collections in focus to one with a high degree of performative documentality and external legitimacy, with adjustment to user needs as the prime goal. This development is related to the emergence of New Public Management and can be seen both in public and academic libraries. It is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

The analytical framework and concepts used are originally developed for this text and prove to be valuable tools in fulfilling the purpose of the article. It represents a new and original way of discussing the future of libraries.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to make a contribution to the theoretical understanding of documents and documentary agency in society through examples from a defined institutional and professional setting; and second, to create an understanding for the role of ethical codes in the process of defining and developing modern librarianship.

This study analyses the role of documentation carrying content of professional ethics in the formulation of modern librarianship. This is done through a series of example documents of various kinds, such as founding charters, peer handbooks and ethical codes systematically analysed through the use of document theory and theory on institutional change.

The findings of this study suggest that documents pronouncing ethical self-regulation within librarianship play a primarily legitimising role in situations where new types of libraries emerge or when libraries adapt to social change. The study proposes legitimacy as a key aspect of documentality, thus supplementing the established understanding of the concept.

This study is the first to analyse the role of ethical codes in libraries using document theory. It brings new knowledge to the role of ethical self-regulation in librarianship over time and in different institutional contexts. In suggesting a developed definition of documentality, it contributes to the theoretical understanding of the role of documents and documentation in institutions and in society at large.

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 this paper is twofold. First, to investigate the documentality of human remains in museum and research collections. Second, to provide a rationale for a processual model of documentation, which can account for their repatriation and eventual burial.

This paper uses a multidisciplinary approach to examine the repatriation issue. It considers an ethical argument developed to support claims for repatriation: the nominal identification of a body as a universal criterion for its burial. Based on Igor Kopytoff’s processual model of commoditisation, it looks to cultural anthropology to help explain how objects can move between a document and non-document state.

Human remains can be understood as examples of information-as-thing. However, while document theory can readily account for the expanding realm of documentation, it cannot adequately accommodate instances where documentality is revoked, and when something ceases to be a document. When a human biological specimen is returned, the process that made it serve as a document is effectively reversed. When remains are interred, they revert to their primary standing, as people. The process of becoming a document is therefore not unidirectional, and document status not permanent.

The implications of a processual model of documentation are discussed. Such a model must be able to account for things as they move into and out of the document state, and where the characteristics of documentality change through time.

This paper explores problematic material not usually discussed in relation to document theory. The repatriation movement poses a challenge to a discourse predicated on documentation as a progressively expanding field.

By engaging with recent debates between management historians over social constructionism, this paper aims to show the merits of adopting a new realist ontology of the business enterprise. In contrast with ANTi-History, the purpose is to provide a philosophically rigorous conception of social objects and to argue that enterprises are a member of this category.

Insights from Maurizio Ferraris’s documentality theory and Graham Harman’s philosophy of social objects are used to identify the ontological forming ground and developmental pathway of an Antipodean stevedoring company that operated prior to the deregulation of New Zealand’s ports in 1989.

With regard to social entities in general and firms in particular, continental philosophy’s resurgent realist movement provides a history-aware social ontology that incorporates the grain of truth lying within social constructionism. As exemplified by the writings of Ferraris and Harman, realism provides a viable conception of social objects and, in so doing, a more coherent ontological foundation for the business enterprise than the relational ontology embraced by management history ANTians.

By drawing on two realist perspectives hitherto neglected by management historians, this paper resolves disagreements about the ontology of the business enterprise.

This paper re-examines the ontology of documents, especially digital ones, in the context of preservation, which presumes the actual existence of things. It also explores which aspects of documents are retained or lost over the course of time.

This study detangles the complexities of existential dependence relations of documents, by selectively reviewing literature on digital preservation, document theory, John Searle's social ontology, Maurizio Ferraris' documentality, and Amie Thomasson's categorial ontology.

The author argues that (1) existing objects can be documents, insofar as perceivers regard them as such; (2) documents are social objects as they depend on other objects, including creators, perceivers, and other documents; and (3) preserving digital documents entails the curation of dependence relations since they inherently have technologically dependent relations.

A clarification of the existential dependence relations of documents can aid documentary heritage institutions in determining preservation goals and strategies. Future research must address how, and to what extent, such dependence relations can be curated.

This paper clarifies that the preservation of documents entails the curation of dependence relations, and the critical issue in preservation is how to best preserve the dependence relations of documents, especially since digital documents available on the Internet inherently have technological and dynamic dependence relations.

The purpose of this paper is to present a reflexive review of ANTi-History written as a reply to a critique by James Reveley, published in the Journal of Management History, called “Firm objects: new realist insights into the sociohistorical ontology of the business enterprise.”

Reveley’s critique of ANTi-History focuses on three aspects, namely, matters of ontology, actors and relationalism. Using the logic of ANTi-History, the author reviews each and offers a reply.

This paper demonstrates that ANTi-History is inspired by amodern thought. This condition negates the need and desire to classify social and physical objects in the study of history. Drawing on Actor-Network Theory, ANTi-History assumes that historical actors are heterogeneous, and the consequence is that both human and nonhuman actors should feature in the study of history. The focus, in using ANTi-History, should be in-between the human and nonhuman actors that make up the past and history. This is the premise of using a relational lens.

The review of ANTi-History is structured as a reply to critiques of the approach. In reflecting on these criticisms, the author realizes that ANTi-History has gotten beyond its originators. As one of those originators, the author inspired to continue to develop its strange potential.

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.