Volume 37, Issue 2 (Winter 2021)                   ... 2021, 37(2): 497-526 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Farashbashi Astaneh M, Nowkarizi M, Behzadi H, Shabani Varaki B. Analysis and Critique of Representationalism in Information Retrieval Action. .... 2021; 37 (2) :497-526
URL: http://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-4645-en.html
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad; Mashhad, Iran;
Abstract:   (505 Views)
The doctrine of representationalism is rooted in the philosophy of mind and cognitive sciences, but it can also be traced in the philosophy of language. The purpose of this paper is to apply representationalist approaches in language and meaning to knowledge and information science research. Therefore, in the first part, the application and achievements of representationalism for information retrieval action are analyzed. Studies are categorized according to their level of concern to language and meaning in organization and information retrieval. Then, in the second part, the representational approaches to Language in Information Retrieval Action (LIRA) are analyzed and criticized in the related research. In this analysis, philosophical approaches have been considered because the roots of representationalism can be traced in semantics and semiotics in linguistic approach. Representationalism with emphasis on the linguistic dimension in the organization and information retrieval research is a theory that is advocated due to the constant relationship between words and the world they represent. In this study representationalism in semantic tools (such as thesauri, subject headings, and classifications) consists of all processes (from indexing to user information searching and retrieval) called Information Retrieval Action (IRA), and can be criticized in various ways. Some studies focus on the nature of knowledge representation and find it in the philosophy of language. Some theoretical studies criticize representationalism by addressing cognitive sciences and related areas in the information representation and retrieval or by focusing on fundamental issues in the philosophy of language and its relation to information retrieval. Others go beyond linguistic level and analyze IRA in terms of semiotics and in connection to meaning. Some studies account for the representation (in knowledge organization and especially in classifications) not as a linguistic but paradigmatic issue at the level of modernist domination in the modern era against which postmodernism stands. Finally, this inquiry illustrates that information retrieval has been rooted in the paradigm of empiricism and positivism in these areas. Representationalism places the mind at the center of cognition and ignores other aspects such as context, culture and use of them. The changes that have taken place over time to overcome the problems in the field of retrieval, such as those of headings and thesauruses and the achievement of ontologies and folksonomies, illustrate the shortcomings of these paradigms arising from representational approaches to language and needs to be changed in favor of a pragmatic view point.
Full-Text [PDF 749 kb]   (205 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Information Storage and Retrieval
Received: 2021/01/11 | Accepted: 2021/06/21 | Published: 2021/12/14

1. اینگورسن، پیتر. 1992. تعامل بازیابی اطلاعات. ترجمه هاجر ستوده. 1389. تهران: کتابدار.
2. پائو، میراندالی. 1989. مفاهیم بازیابی اطلاعات. ترجمه اسدالله آزاد و رحمت‌الله فتاحی. 1380. مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فردوسی.
3. خندان، محمد.1393. تحلیل بن‌مایه‌های بازنمایی، عینیت و جهان‌شمولی در گفتمان مدرن رده‌بندی دانش و نقادی آن از دیدگاه پست‌مدرن. پایان‌نامه دکتری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
4. Blair, D. C. 1986. Indeterminacy in the subject access to documents. Information processing & management 22 (3): 229-241. [DOI:10.1016/0306-4573(86)90055-5]
5. _____. 1990. Language and representation in information retrieval. New Your: Elsevier North-Holland, Inc.
6. _____. 1992. Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. The Computer Journal 35 (3): 200-207. [DOI:10.1093/comjnl/35.3.200]
7. _____. 2003. Information retrieval and the philosophy of language. In Language and representation in information retrieval. New York: Elsevier North-Holland, Inc.
8. Brenner, J. E. 2011. On representation in information theory. Information 2 (3): 560-578. [DOI:10.3390/info2030560]
9. Chatterjee, A. 2017. Elements of Information Organization and Dissemination. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-08-102025-8.00025-9]
10. Chu, H. 2010. Information representation and retrieval: An overview. In Information representation and retrieval (IRR) in the digital age (ASIST Monograph Series) (pp. 1-25). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
11. Friedman, A., & M. Thellefsen. 2011. Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization. Journal of documentation 67 (4): 644-674. [DOI:10.1108/00220411111145034]
12. Frohmann, B. 1990. Rules of indexing: a critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory. Journal of documentation. 46 (2): 81-101. [DOI:10.1108/eb026855]
13. Hjørland, B. 1992. The Concept of 'subject' in Information Science. Journal of documentation 48 (2): 172-200. [DOI:10.1108/eb026895]
14. _____. 1997. Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-theoretical Approach to Information Science. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
15. _____. 1998. Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics. Knowledge Organization 25 (1/2): 16-31.
16. _____. 2004. Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science. Library Trends 52 (3): 488-506.
17. _____ .2007. Semantics and knowledge organization. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41: 367-405.
18. _____. 2008. What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization 35 (3/2): 86-101. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-86]
19. _____. 2011. The importance of theories of knowledge: Indexing and information retrieval as an example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (1): 72-77. [DOI:10.1002/asi.21451]
20. _____. 2013. User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization: A theoretical analysis of the research literature. Knowledge Organization 40 (1): 11-27. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2013-1-11]
21. _____. 2014. Information science and its core concepts: Levels of disagreement. In Theories of information, communication and knowledge (pp. 205-235). Dordrecht: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-6973-1_9]
22. _____. 2015. Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Knowledge Organization 42 (2): 113-128. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2015-2-113]
23. _____. 2016. Does the Traditional Thesaurus Have a Place in Modern Information Retrieval? Knowledge Organization 43 (3): 145-159. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2016-3-145]
24. _____. 2017a. Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization: Subject (of documents). Knowledge Organization 44 (1): 55-64. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2017-1-55]
25. _____. 2017b. Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization: Classification. Knowledge Organization, 44 (2): 97-128. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2017-2-97]
26. _____. 2018. Indexing: concepts and theory. Knowledge Organization 45 (7): 609-639. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-7-609]
27. Huang, S. C. 2006. A semiotic view of information: Semiotics as a foundation of LIS research in information behavior". Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43 (1): 1-17. [DOI:10.1002/meet.1450430166]
28. Machado, L. M. O., D. Martínez-Ávila, & M. D. G. de Melo Simões. 2019. Concept theory in library and information science: an epistemological analysis. Journal of Documentation 75 (4): 876-891. [DOI:10.1108/JD-11-2018-0195]
29. Mai, J. E. 1999. Deconstructing the indexing process. Advances in Librarianship 23: 269-298. [DOI:10.1108/S0065-2830(1999)0000023013]
30. _____. 2000. The subject indexing process: an investigation of problems in knowledge representation Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
31. _____. 2001. Semiotics and indexing: an analysis of the subject indexing process. Journal of documentation 57 (5): 591-622. [DOI:10.1108/EUM0000000007095]
32. _____. 2004. Classification in context: relativity, reality, and representation. Knowledge organization, 31 (1): 39-48.
33. Mazzocchi, F. 2018. Knowledge organization system (KOS): an introductory critical account. Knowledge Organization 45 (1): 54-78. [DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54]
34. Palmer, S. E. 1978. Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation, In Rosch and Lloyd (Eds). Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
35. Raber, D., and J. M. Budd. 2003. Information as sign: semiotics and information science. Journal of Documentation 59 (5): 507-522. [DOI:10.1108/00220410310499564]
36. Rafferty, P. 2001. The representation of knowledge in library classification schemes. Knowledge Organization 28 (4): 180-191.
37. Saracevic, Tefko. 1992. Information science: origin, evolution, relations. In Vakkari, Pertti and Cronin, Blaise, eds., Conceptions of library and information science: historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham, pp. 5-27.
38. Svenonius, E. 2004. The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations. Library Trends 52 (3): 571-587.
39. Thornley, C., & F. Gibb. 2007. A dialectical approach to information retrieval. Journal of documentation, 63 (5): 755-764. [DOI:10.1108/00220410710827781]
40. _____. 2009. Meaning in philosophy and meaning in information retrieval (IR). Journal of documentation 65 (1): 133-150. [DOI:10.1108/00220410910926158]
41. Thornley, C. 2009. Dilemmas in information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR): recurring challenges or new solutions? In Aslib proceedings: New information perspectives 61 (3): 323-330). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [DOI:10.1108/00012530910959853]
42. Weiss, L. C., M. Bräscher, & W. B. Vianna. 2016. Pragmatism, Constructivism and Knowledge Organization. In Knowledge Organization for a Sustainable World: Challenges and Perspectives for Cultural, Scientific, and Technological Sharing in a Connected Society, p. 211-218. [DOI:10.5771/9783956504389-211]
43. Wilks, Y. 2004. IR and AI: traditions of representation and anti-representation in information processing. In European Conference on Information Retrieval, pp. 12-26. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-24752-4_2]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Information processing and Management

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb