اطلاعات: نگرش ها
بیرژه یورلند (Birger Hjørland) بر این باور است که دو نوع نگرش اصلی نسبت به اطلاعات وجود دارد که به شرح زیر است:
Two basic views of information
- "The objective understanding (Observer independent, situation independent). Versions of this view have been put forward by, for example, Parker, Dretske, Stonier, and Bates. Bates’ version implies: Any difference is information.
- The subjective/situational understanding. Versions have been put forward by, for example, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjørland. This position implies: Information is a difference that makes a difference (for somebody or for something or from a point of view). What is information for one person in one situation needs not be information for another person or in another situation. This view of information as a noun is related to becoming informed (informing as a verb). Something is information if it is informative—or rather, something is information when it is informative. (This view is also considered by Bates but is termed “information 2.”)" (Hjørland, 2007). An example,
"A stone on a field could contain different information for different people (or from one situation to another). It is not possible for information systems to map all the stone’s possible information for every individual. Nor is any one mapping the one “true” mapping. But people have different educational backgrounds and play different roles in the division of labor in society. A stone in a field represents typical one kind of information for the geologist, another for the archaeologist. The information from the stone can be mapped into different collective knowledge structures produced by e.g. geology and archaeology. Information can be identified, described, represented in information systems for different domains of knowledge. Of course, there are much uncertainty and many and difficult problems in determining whether a thing is informative or not for a domain. Some domains have high degree of consensus and rather explicit criteria of relevance. Other domains have different, conflicting paradigms, each containing it own more or less implicate view of the informativeness of different kinds of information sources" (Hjørland, 2007).
Hjørland (2007) demonstrates that the domain-specific understanding is the way of understanding most in correspondence with ordinary views of science and knowledge: Researchers in each domain look at the world from a specific perspective and define and process information accordingly.
"That information is tied to a particular, concrete situation and a particular social group has some important consequences, summarized in the following list of qualities of information:
- Situated. Information can only be fully understood in relation to the particular, concrete situation in which it actually occurs.
- Local. Interpretations are constructed in some particular context, including a particular time, place and group.
- Emergent. Information cannot be understood at the level of the individual, that is, at the cognitive level of individual psychology, because it arises through ongoing interactions among members of a group.
- Contingent. The interpretation of information depends on the current situation, which may include the current interpretation of prior events [note: Of course, an “event” is what some group counts as an event]. In particular, interpretations are subject to negotiation, and relevant rules are interpreted locally, and can even be modified locally.
- Embodied. Information is tied to bodies in particular physical situations, so that the particular way that bodies are embedded in a situation may be essential to some interpretations.
- Vague. In practice, information is only elaborated to the degree that it is useful to do so; the rest is left grounded in tacit knowledge.
- Open. Information (for both participants and analysts) cannot in general be given a final and complete form, but must remain open to revision in the light of further analyses and further events. (At the analyst level, one may say “all theories leak.”)" (Hjørland, 2007).
Hjørland, Birger (2007). Information: Objective or Subjective/Situational? Journal of The American Society For Information Science And Technology, 58(10):1448–1456.