[논문]Information Professionals Going Beyond the Needful User in Digital Humanities Project Collaboration

Engerer, Volkmar P.

doi:10.1633/jistap.2020.8.1.1

Information Professionals Going Beyond the Needful User in Digital Humanities Project Collaboration 원문보기

Journal of information science theory and practice : JISTaP, v.8 no.1, 2020년, pp.6 - 19

Engerer, Volkmar P. (Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

When information professionals deal with other disciplines in the course of digital humanities projects, they often assume that they are dealing with 'needful users' who have an 'information gap' to fill. This paper argues that the traditional view that information/knowledge is transferred from an information specialist donor to a domain specialist receiver is no longer appropriate in the digital humanities context, where the gap-and-search (or gap-and-filler) approach to information has given way to more direct, explorative engagement with information. The paper asks whether information science and the practising profession are ready for this paradigm shift and examines information science conservatism in two common collaboration scenarios, library support and digital development. It is shown that information science theory still assumes a traditional donor role in both scenarios. How information scientists deal with conservatism in practice is discussed in the example of the Prior project, in which the information science team exerted an ambiguous, hybrid approach with both conservative and non-conservative elements. Finally, two rather hypothetical answers are offered to the question of how information professionals should approach scholarly collaboration in the digital humanities context, where users have ceased to be supplicants. From a purely pragmatic perspective, information scientists need to shift their focus from information needs to research practices and the implications of these practices for digital information systems. More fundamentally, the emergence of digital humanities challenges information professionals to transform information systems designed for searching into digital objects that can be explored more freely by the digital humanities community.

주제어

표/그림 (3)

표 Table 1. Cross-classifed receiver-donor dimensions and specifcation of two scenarios, library support and digital development
그림 Fig. 1. From websites to information systems to types of information systems to type-specific knowledge and back to the information system.
그림 Fig. 2. General structure of Prior Internet Resources (as of summer 2017): six information systems representing five distinct information system types, implemented on three internet domains functioning in three areas.

AI 본문요약
AI-Helper

* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.

문제 정의

This paper attempts to investigate the role of information science and information professionals in the emerging online academic communities called digital humanities. The digital humanities are by no means a clear-cut scientific discipline.
This project involves researchers working on the time logic of the New Zealand philosopher and logician Arthur Norman Prior working with information scientists affiliated with the Department of Information Studies, University of Copenhagen (Prior Project Group, 2017). One of the tasks of the information science group is to develop the Danish Prior websites associated with the project, enhance communication and collaboration between Prior researchers worldwide, and make Prior’s unpublished manuscripts accessible in transcribed and digitised form.
This study explores the role of one dominant dogma in information science—the concept of the “needful user” in digital humanities—and how this concept manifests itself in digital collaborations information scientists are engaged in.

가설 설정

The discussion analyses how conservative the information science group’s conceptualisation of the collaboration domain of philosophy and logic was - i.e., the extent to which it was based on the user-with-a-specific-need premise - and the extent to which more modern approaches crept into the group’s work.

제안 방법

A bottom-up analysis of the scenarios was carried out. This looked at the conservatism of the information scientific approach, operationalised as how easily two questions that are central to the needful user premise (What is the information need? How can it be satisfied?) could be answered.
In order to explore information science’s readiness for this paradigm shift at both the theoretical and practical level we modelled the needful user concept as a donor-receiver transfer relationship.
Instead of trying to anticipate researchers’ unpredictable information needs, the group strived to design an information structure that reflected the Prior researchers’ practices.
One of the tasks of the information science group is to develop the Danish Prior websites associated with the project, enhance communication and collaboration between Prior researchers worldwide, and make Prior’s unpublished manuscripts accessible in transcribed and digitised form.
I conclude with some more speculative considerations of how this hybridity or ambiguity regarding conservatism could be resolved and the ubiquity of the needful user could be overcome under the conditions of the digital humanities. The method applied is a conceptual analysis, which combines a deductive, top-down modelling of the knowledge transfer relationship between information scientists and research colleagues in the domain, and an inductive, bottom-up perspective that construes conservatism on a scalar dimension representing adherence to the needful user. I discuss, briefly, how conservatism has manifested itself empirically in the Prior project.
The project group clearly had some awareness that a shift was going on, that scholars were going from being informationlacking individuals to domain specialists who interact with information – to create, modify, explore, and study it.

참고문헌 (86)

Antoniou, G., Groth, P., van Harmelen, F., & Hoekstra, R. (2012). A semantic web primer. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Baeza-Yates, R., & de Araujo Neto Ribeiro, B. (2011). Modern information retrieval: The concepts and technology behind search. New York: Addison Wesley.
Barrionuevo, L. (2011). Libraries for users: Services in academic libraries. Oxford: Chandos.
Batley, S. (2005). Classification in theory and practice. Oxford: Chandos.
Bawden, D. (1986). Information systems and the stimulation of creativity. Journal of Information Science, 12(5), 203-216.

상세보기
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Lis, L., Stein, A., & Steinhorst, M. (2012). Research portals: Status quo and improvement perspectives. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), 8(3), 27-46.

상세보기
Beghtol, C. (1986). Bibliographic classification theory and text linguistics: Aboutness analysis, intertextuality and the cognitive act of classifying documents. Journal of Documentation, 42(2), 84-113.

상세보기
Belkin, N. J. (1977). Linguistic and cognitive models of information and state of knowledge: Final report arising from a study visit overseas made to the U.S.A. 21 September-20 October 1976. London: British Library.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 28-37.
Bjorneborn, L. (2017). Three key affordances for serendipity: Toward a framework connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters. Journal of Documentation, 73(5), 1053-1081.

상세보기
Blair, D. C. (1992). Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. The Computer Journal, 35(3), 200-207.

상세보기
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Borlund, P. (2013). Interactive information retrieval: An introduction. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 1(3), 12-32.

원문보기 상세보기
Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J. S., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., & Olson, G. M. (2008). From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 53-72). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Calvert, P. J. (2015). Information needs analysis: Principles and practice in information organizations. London: Facet.
Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.
Chowdhury, G. G. (2010). Introduction to modern information retrieval. London: Facet.
Christensen, L. R. (2016). On intertext in chemotherapy: An ethnography of text in medical practice. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25(1), 1-38.

상세보기
Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7(1), 19-37.

상세보기
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 99-117). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Deegan, M., & McCarty, W. (2012). Collaborative research in the digital humanities. Farnham: Ashgate.
Derr, R. L. (1983). A conceptual analysis of information need. Information Processing & Management, 19(5), 273-278.

상세보기
Edwards, S. L. (2007). Phenomenography: 'Follow the yellow brick road'! In S. Lipu, K. Williamson, & A. Lloyd (Eds.), Exploring methods in information literacy research (pp. 87-110). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.
Eggert, P. (2009). The book, the e-text and the "work-site." In M. Deegan, & K. Sutherland (Eds.), Text editing, print and the digital world (pp. 63-82). Farnham: Ashgate.
Elsayed, I., Madey, G., & Brezany, P. (2011). Portals for collaborative research communities: Two distinguished case studies. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 23(3), 269-278.

상세보기
Engerer, V. (2017). Control and syntagmatization: Vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1480-1490.

상세보기
Engerer, V. (2019). Information systems in interdisciplinary research: Analytic and holistic ways to access information science knowledge. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 7(2), 6-22.

원문보기 상세보기
Engerer, V., & Albretsen, J. (2017). The Prior Internet Resources 2017: Information systems and development perspectives. In P. F. V. Hasle, P. Blackburn, & P. Ohrstrom (Eds.), Logic and philosophy of time: Themes from Prior (pp. 223-249). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
Engerer, V., Roued-Cunliffe, H., Albretsen, J., & Hasle, P. F. V. (2017). The Prior-project: From archive boxes to a research community. Paper presented at Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries (pp. 53-57). Gothenburg: The University of Gothenburg, Department of Literature, History of Ideas and Religion.
Engerer, V., & Sabir, F. (2020). Information professionals meet Arthur Prior. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(1), 288-305.

상세보기
Erdelez, S. (1997). Information encountering: A conceptual framework for accidental information discovery. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolalinen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Proceedings of an international conference on information seeking in context (pp. 412-421). London: Taylor Graham Publishing.
Falconer, L. (2006). Organizational learning, tacit information, and e-learning: A review. The Learning Organization, 13(2), 140-151.

상세보기
Finholt, T. A. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 73-107.

상세보기
Flanders, J. (2012). Collaboration and dissent: Challenges of collaborative standards for digital humanities. In M. Deegan, & W. McCarty (Eds.), Collaborative research in the digital humanities (pp. 67-80). Farnham: Ashgate.
Flanders, J., & Mylonas, E. (2017). Digital humanities. In J. McDonald, & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (pp. 1286-1297). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Foskett, D. J. (1997). Thesaurus. In K. Sparck Jones, & P. Willet (Eds.), Readings in information retrieval (pp. 111-134). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Foster, A., & Ellis, D. (2014). Serendipity and its study. Journal of Documentation, 70(6), 1015-1038.

상세보기
Godwin, P., & Parker, J. (2012). Information literacy beyond library 2.0. London: Facet.
Gurak, L. J., & Antonijevic, S. (2012). The psychology of blogging: You, me, and everyone in between. In J. Hughes (Ed.), SAGE Internet research methods (pp. 93-103). London: Sage.
Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. London: Facet.
Hjorland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches - Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462.

상세보기
Hockey, S. (2012). Digital humanities in the age of the Internet: Reaching out to other communities. In M. Deegan, & W. McCarty (Eds.), Collaborative research in the digital humanities (pp. 81-92). Farnham: Ashgate.
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., Held, C., & Moskaliuk, J. (2010). Social software and knowledge building: Supporting co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 9-16). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). Wiki-supported knowledge building theory, research and application. In S. Bocconi, & G. Trentin (Eds.), Wiki supporting formal and informal learning (pp. 41-55). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
King, B. E., & Reinold, K. (2008). Finding the concept, not just the word: A librarian's guide to ontologies and semantics. Oxford: Chandos.
Knoer, S. (2011). The reference interview today. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited.
Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice. London: Facet.
Li, L. (2009). Emerging technologies for academic libraries in the digital age. Oxford: Chandos.
Limberg, L., Sundin, O., & Talja, S. (2012). Three theoretical perspectives on information literacy. Human It, 11(2), 93-130.
Lin, H., Fan, W., & Zhang, Z. (2009). A qualitative study of webbased knowledge communities: Examining success factors. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 5(3), 39-57.

상세보기
Lloyd, A., & Talja, S. (2010). Practising information literacy: Bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy together. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.
Miksa, F. L. (1994). Classification. In W. A. Wiegand, & D. G. Davis (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 144-153). New York: Garland.
Mohamad Ali, N., Smeaton, A. F., & Lee, H. (2011). Designing an interface for a digital movie browsing system in the film studies domain. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and Its Applications, 5(9), 361-370.
Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.

상세보기
Notari, M., & Honegger, B. D. (2012). Wiki: An archetypical tool for collaborative learning in the digital age. In S. Bocconi, & G. Trentin (Eds.), Wiki supporting formal and informal learning (pp. 21-39). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Olson, J. S., Hofer, E. C., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. M., Cooney, D., & Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 73-97). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Osterlund, C., Sawyer, S., & Kaziunas, E. (2011). Studying technologically dense environments through documenting practices. Paper presented at 27th Egos Colloquium (pp. 1-28). Gothenburg.
Osterlund, C., Snyder, J., Sawyer, S., Sharma, S., & Willis, M. (2015). Documenting work: From participant observation to participant tracing. In K. D. Elsbach, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods (pp. 391-400). London: Routledge.
Owusu-Ansah, E. K. (2005). Debating definitions of information literacy: Enough is enough! Library Review, 54(6), 366-374.

상세보기
Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Prior Project Group. (2017). The primacy of tense: A. N. Prior now and then. Retrieved February 2, 2020 from http://www.prior.aau.dk.
Ramage, M. A. (2010). Evaluating collaborative technologies: A simple method. In H. M. Donelan, K. L. Kear, & M. A. Ramage (Eds.), Online communication and collaboration: A reader (pp. 73-77). New York: Routledge.
Robinson, L., & Schulz, J. (2012). New avenues for sociological inquiry: Evolving forms of ethnographic practice. In J. Hughes (Ed.), SAGE Internet research methods (pp. 33-47). London: Sage.
Rockwell, G. (2012). Crowdsourcing the humanities: Social research and collaboration. In M. Deegan, & W. McCarty (Eds.), Collaborative research in the digital humanities (pp. 135-154). Farnham: Ashgate.
Ross, C. S., Nilsen, K., & Dewdney, P. (2002). Conducting the reference interview: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. London: Facet.
Ruthven, I., & Kelly, D. (2011). Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. London: Facet.
Sabir, F., & Engerer, V. (2019). The prior eAchive as virtual research environment: Towards serendipity and explorability. In P. Blackburn, P. F. V. Hasle, & P. Ohrstrom (Eds.), Logic and philosophy of time: Further themes from prior (pp. 201-230). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
Sandstrom, P. E. (1994). An optimal foraging approach to information seeking and use. The Library Quarterly, 64(4), 414-449.

상세보기
Sandstrom, P. E. (1999). Scholars as subsistence foragers. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 25(3), 17-20.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr-Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 10-23). London: Routledge.
Sharifabadi, S. R. (2006). How digital libraries can support elearning. The Electronic Library, 24(3), 389-401.

상세보기
Shuhuai, R., Xingjun, S., Haiqing, L., & Jialin, C. (2009). From information commons to knowledge commons: Building a collaborative knowledge sharing environment for innovative communities. The Electronic Library, 27(2), 247-257.

상세보기
Stock, W. G., & Stock, M. (2013). Handbook of information science. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Terras, M. M., Nyhan, J., & Vanhoutte, E. (2013). Introduction. In M. M. Terras, J. Nyhan, & E. Vanhoutte (Eds.), Defining digital humanities: A reader (pp. 1-10). Farnham: Ashgate.
Tredinnick, L. (2006). Digital information contexts: Theoretical approaches to understanding digital information. Oxford: Chandos.
Tredinnick, L. (2007). Digital information culture: The individual and society in the digital age. Oxford: Chandos.
Vasileiadou, E. (2012). Research teams as complex systems: Implications for knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 10(2), 118-127.

상세보기
Wagner, I., Bratteteig, T., & Stuedahl, D. (2010). Exploring digital design: Multi-disciplinary design practices. London: Springer.
Wallace, P. M. (2001). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wallace, P. M. (2015). Introduction to information systems. London: Pearson.
Warner, J. (2007). Linguistics and information theory: Analytic advantages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 275-285.

상세보기
Warwick, C., Terras, M., & Nyhan, J. (2012). Digital humanities in practice. London: Facet.
Wilson, T. D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1), 3-15.

상세보기
Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32-36.

상세보기

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증