View
220
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Theory Development in the Information Sciences. Edited by Diane H. Sonnenwald. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press, 2016. 343 pp. $90.00 (hardcover). (ISBN 978-1-4773-0824-0)
Introduction
This book is an anthology containing 17 chapters, the first and last written by the editor and the 15
remaining chapters written by 16 different authors, mainly outstanding researchers from information
science1. As indicated by the title, it is about theory development in information sciences in the plural.
However, nowhere does the editor provide a listing of which sciences are included in her conception of
information sciences. On page one is stated: “Emerging in the first half of the twentieth century as a
discipline, the information sciences contribute …”. This seems for to me to be a contradiction in terms. I
consider the book to be about information science in the singular. There are, for example, no contributors
from museology, information management, terminology studies etc. Almost all authors seems to be
institutionalized within information science (but many of the authors use the plural “information sciences”,
perhaps in order to reflect the title of the book).
Theory cannot be overestimated for the progress of our field. Recently there have been voices about crisis
in information science (e.g., Bawden, 2015; Madsen, 2016; Nolin and Åstrøm, 2010). Although these articles
try to deny the weakness (as does Sonnenwald in this book), or to turn weakness to a strength, the point
here is about how we cope with our challenges and the role of theory for this purpose. One problem seems
to be that other fields are doing better and seem to absorb information science. David Bawden, for
example, wrote:
“It is also true that where LIS does develop genuinely new and interesting ideas, other
disciplines absorb them as their own. Information retrieval is the classic example: 30 years ago,
it was clearly part of LIS, and very few computer scientists took it seriously; 15 years ago it was
1 The table of content is available at: http://utpress.utexas.edu/index.php/books/sonnenwald-theory-development-information-sciences
1
spread across the boundary lines of the disciplines; now, the party line is that it is an integral
part of computer science, and always has been [Bawden provided other examples as well] ”
(Bawden, 2015).
I consider it a fact that computer science today dominates IR. Statistical IR as represented in computer
science is weakly represented in our field. The question is if IR still is also a subfield of information science.
Do we have other approaches that are able to contribute to and may justify our existence as a scholarly
discipline? If the final answer is that the statistical approach simply won, then there seems no future for IR
as a subdiscipline in LIS (and the same may be the case with other subfields). The question of content areas
is closely connected to the question about theories and approaches: There are not God-given or logic based
content areas (but disciplines should perhaps rather be understood as battlefields or territories). Therefore,
the discourse about theory seems to be extremely important for the future of information science. It is
from this perspective that the book under review is examined.
The organization of theories (and of the book)
In chapter one, Sonnenwald uses a theory taxonomy from Gregor (2006): (1) theory for analyzing, (2)
theory for explaining, (3) theory for predicting, (4) theory for explaining and predicting, and (5) theory for
design and action. In the same chapter, she also classifies other chapters according to this classification
(except chapter 7, 8, 9, 13, which are not classified). The organization of chapters in the book, however,
crisscross this classification: Part 1: [Theories about] Behavior of individuals and groups, Part 2: [Theories
about] Evaluation, Part 3: [Theories about] Design, and Part 4: [Theories about] Cultural and scientific
heritage. This organization is rather loose. For example, the chapters by Bawden and Meadows are placed
in Part 4 but are not about cultural and scientific heritage.
2
There are many ways to classify theories. Case (2012, p. 167) suggested a classification by paradigm, grand
theory, formal theory, substantive theory and observations. Sonnenwald does not consider alternative
ways of classifying theories and although Gregor’s taxonomy seems to work well (as also demonstrated by
Thelwall in his chapter on theory development in webometrics) I have reservations about it. It seems
superficial, ahistorical, and not fit to distinguish the major theoretical perspectives in information science.
Take the understanding of “information” as an example:
(1) in information theory “information” is defined:
“As a mathematically defined quantity divorced from any concept of news or meaning […];
spec. one which represents the degree of choice exercised in the selection or formation of
one particular symbol, message, etc., out of a number of possible ones, and which is
defined logarithmically in terms of the statistical probabilities of occurrence of the symbol
or the elements of the message.” (Oxford English Dictionary, Information, sense 2c).
(2) In the cognitive view:
a. “On the one hand information being something which is the result of a transformation of a
generator’s knowledge structures (by intentionality, model of recipients’ state of
knowledge, and in the form of signs) and
b. On the other hand being something which, when perceived, affects and transforms the
recipient’s state of knowledge.” (Ingwersen and Järvelin, 2005, p. 33; italics in original).
(3) In documentation theory:
“The term "information" is also used attributively for objects, such as data and documents,
that are referred to as "information" because they are regarded as being informative, as
"having the quality of imparting knowledge or communicating information; instructive."
(Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, vol. 7, p. 946)." (Buckland, 1991b, p. 351). Consider this
3
implication: "We conclude that we are unable to say confidently of anything that it could
not be information" (Buckland, 1991a, p. 50. Underlining in original).
(4) In a socially informed theory:
"An item of information is an interpretation of a configuration of signs for which members
of some social group are accountable." (Goguen, 1997).
Each of these different theoretical perspectives (information theory, cognitive theory, documentation
theory and social theory) are both about analysis, explanation, prediction and action in information science
and the example above nicely demonstrates the principle that different theories tend to understand basic
terms differently. As we shall discuss in the next session, both the classification theories as well as the view
of theory development seems to be too narrow. Concerning the different functions of theories, I strongly
agree with Stephen Robertson:
“I consider myself a theorist. That is, my inclination is to theoretical argument, to achieving
theoretical understanding, in information retrieval as in other realms. To me, understanding is
what theory is about; those other attributes of theory, prediction and application, are side-
effects only, secondary to the main purpose” (Robertson, 2000, p. 1).
Theory development
The goal of the book is most clearly described in the last short chapter “Supporting future theory
development” by the editor. The goal is to improve theory development by individual researchers, for
example during their doctoral training. Many of the chapters in the book are autobiographical reports
about how the authors constructed theories in their respective specialties (intended as learning exemplars).
The overall perspective seems extremely individualistic, however. As Bonnie Nardi writes in her chapter
“Appropriating theory”:
4
“Many of the chapters in this volume concern the development of new theory. I want to take a
slightly different tack and focus on the scholar’s appropriation of existing theory. I believe that
such appropriation is a critical step along the way in developing new theory and that many
existing theories are underexploited” (p. 204).
Yes indeed! The overall situation in information science today is a chaos of theoretical contributions, each
paying no or much too little interest in the existing ones, what Åström (2006, p. 20) after Whitley (1984)
called a 'fragmented adhocracy', a field with a low level of coordination around a diffuse set of goals. If this
is the case, PhD students should not just be encouraged to develop new theories, but primarily to consider
major theoretical positions, which are often implicit and therefore have to be uncovered by historical-
theoretical analyses of information science.
About the single contributions
2. Marcia J. Bates: Many paths to theory: The creative process in the information sciences
This chapter both contains advice such as “be open”, “draw on a variety of research traditions” and “read
deeply” and then goes into some specific areas of information science. I agree very much with a point
made, that human-computer interaction (HCI) looks different from an information-seeking point of view
compared to the more general field of HCI. (In my view, information science is more about humans
communicating with the accumulated recorded knowledge with or without the use of computers, and is
not primarily involved in HCI). It is thus important always to consider to research from the perspectives of
your own field, a point also made by other authors, for example, Andrew Dillon in chapter 12.
3. ShanJu Lin Chang: Reflections on theory construction in human information behavior: A theory of
browsing.
5
This a description of the author’s research about browsing and theory construction, but it ends up with the
conclusion that the developed theory is not the final word about browsing. In comparing behavioral with
cognitive perspectives, Chang finds the cognitive perspectives most useful. What the chapter does not do,
however, is to relate more systematically browsing theory to metatheory in information science. It seems
obvious to me, that some domains have more strict criteria of relevance (corresponding to Buckland’s
figure p. 107 that some domains are more compact while other are more diffuse). Is it not probable that
browsing activity is shaped by cultural factors and scholarly metatheories? That, taking Buckland’s figure as
the point of departure, should physicists be more constrained in their professional browsing compared to
zoologists? Also, that a paradigm shift in a domain tends to change the focus of all forms of information
behavior? The chapter provides a fine overview of Chang’s research process but used as a lesson for PhD
students it may say much about browsing but less about theory development in general.
4. Carol Collier Kuhlthau: Reflections of the development of a theoretical perspective.
Kuhlthau is one of the leading researchers associated with “the cognitive view” in information science and
this chapter is a fine presentation of her theory-developing process. She refers to John Dewey and Lev
Vygotsky among the basic theoretical inspirations–the same authors that I also often include in my own list
of basic inspirations. Kuhlthau refers to “constructivism”, a term with different interpretations. I see myself
closer to social constructivism than to psychological, individual constructivism. Kuhlthau’s empirical and
theoretical work describes stages in the development of students information seeking (termed the ISP
model, “information search process model”). Well, I do not believe it provides a realistic picture of
information seeking and use. For me, Jerome McGann’s autobiographical chapter in this book offers a much
more realistic picture. Every time a serious student works with a problem, she discovers that she does not
know what is needed to answer the question, and that new information is needed, which unfortunately
opens up huge new literatures with too little time available. (Of course, students mostly learn to satisfice
but is that a good thing?). The situation in which students and researchers find themselves are social
6
conditions, including paradigmatic conflicts and uncertainties. Whether we are pessimistic or optimistic is
not just a matter of our own psychological construction, but also the success of the field in which we are
working and the opportunities that seems open to us. Therefore, I believe that Kuhlthau’s view —and
generally, the cognitive view in information science— is based on what has been termed “the psychological
fallacy”:
"In 1910 Dewey [p. 250] wrote a statement that expresses a central tenet of cultural
psychology. He said that the processes that animate and form consciousness lie outside it in
social life. Therefore, the objective for psychologists is to use mental phenomena (e.g.,
perception, emotions) as clues for comprehending the life processes that they represent. [...]
´The supposition that these states [of consciousness] are somehow existent by themselves and
in this existence provide the psychologist with ready-made material is just the supreme case of
the "psychological fallacy"´ " Ratner at the same place also referred to Vygotsky (1997, pp.
272-273, 327) "for a remarkably similar statement" to Dewey´s. (Ratner, 2002 , p. 3).
If PhD students do not learn about such criticism, where does that bring them in their own theory
developing process?
5. Gary M. Olson and Judith S Olson: Converging on theory from four sides.
This chapter reports on the author’s theory building in relation to distance collaborations, including large-
scale scientific collaborations. The theory building was done by four main classes of resources: (1) one’s
own empirical research, (2) mining the literature, (3) compilation of data from more than seven hundred
collaboratories, and (4) an online assessment tool build by the authors. For me, the chapter does not seem
to suggest a real theory, just sets of factors affecting such collaboratories. It is my suggestion that a deeper
foundation in the sociology of science could strengthen the theory development. Whitley (1984) provided a
7
taxonomy of the sciences based on two main factors: (1) The degree of mutual dependence between
scientists and the organization of scientific fields and (2) The degree of task uncertainty and the
organization of scientific fields.
Again, students may learn a lot about scientific collaborations and many of the things reported in the
chapter are important. However, a deeper level of theory-discussion may provide better possibilities for
independent theory construction.
6. Michael K Buckland: Drawing graphs for theory development in bibliometrics and retrieval.
Buckland is well known as a major theoretical contributor to information science, arguing for, in particular,
document theory and cultural theory. This chapter seems at first to be different. It consists of two case
studies about the relations between (1) obsolesce and scattering and (2) recall and precision. It argues
about the fruitfulness of drawing graphs, but it could also – at a deeper level –- be considered about the
fruitfulness of thought experiments. For example, in information retrieval the fruitfulness of comparing
three extremes: (a) the perfect search, (b) the random search, and (c) perverse retrieval. The chapter is
important and so seems the conclusions, including this: “Over the years bibliometrics has become a hugely
sophisticated specialty in which dazzling quantitative analysis of surface phenomena have not yet been
accompanied by any know progress in explaining the deeper causal issues at the core of the information
sciences”. (It should be mentioned, however, that Buckland’s claim about the necessary inverse relation
between recall and precision has been refuted by Fugmann, 1994 and elsewhere). At the deeper level, this
chapter may be related to document theory and cultural theory by considering bibliometrics and retrieval
in the light of different scientific conditions.
7 Kalervo Järvelin: Two views on theory development for interactive information retrieval.
This chapter presents an advanced argument for theory development in a core area of information science
by one of the most prestigious researchers in the field. My most important comment is that the chapter is
8
an important contribution to the book. It represents the experimental approach- or rather an extension of
the well-known laboratory approach founded by the Cranfield experiments and continued by the TREC
experiments. The extension consists mainly in the inclusion of the human side of the search process by
using simulated search tasks. It considers theory development closely connected to or derived from
experimental findings.
That said, I believe that many serious objections can and should be raised, and the approach is different
from what I consider the way forward. Just a single example, Järvelin wrote (p. 126): “Even success in IIR
[interactive information retrieval] is debatable; how should success be measured?” My suggestion is that
the answer is epistemological, that, for example, evidence-based medicine has explicit (although
debatable) criteria of what should be found. From such criteria, the effectiveness of search systems must
be evaluated (see further in, for example, Hjørland, 2016a).
My main point is that theories are not just derived from experimental findings, but are primarily in the head
of the researcher prior to the experiments. Experiments may be important, but are always limited by the
implicit assumptions in the head of the experimenter. There is not space in this review for further
discussion, but I hope to be able to continue my analysis in other contexts.
8. Tefko Saracevic: Relevance: In search of a theoretical foundation
I agree with the author that relevance is a core concept in information science. However, in 1975 Saracevic
declared “the subject knowledge view” to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance, but this view
was since forgotten or repressed without argument, which I consider problematic (see Hjørland, 2010). My
suggestion is that conceptions of relevance depend on basic theories of information science just as the
concept of information in the example above and that improvement first and foremost is connected with
realizing the limits in the cognitive and user-oriented conception of relevance. Compare Buckland’s
comment in this book (p.113): “The notion of relevance itself is problematic and unscientific”.
9
9. Mike Thelwall: The story of a colony: Theory development in webometric research
The author does not consider himself as engaged in theory development, but reports two exceptions in
which he developed theory: (1) The development of information centered research (ICR) and (2) The
theoretical framework for link analysis (TFLA). The first seems strange for me. As I read it in this chapter (I
have not consulted the primary papers) I understand it as suggesting an atheoretical description of new
web-phenomena for the purpose of pointing out research problems for which they are relevant. The
problem I see with this is that what counts as a relevant source for a given research project depends
strongly on the questions asked and the theory behind the research questions. I have addressed this
problem in the context of classifying and indexing documents in many publications. The second theory
(TFLA) seems also for me to be just a special case of the theory of citation motives and citation behavior in
informetrics. I expect webometric theories to be just special cases of bibliometric theories, and I have
outlined some thoughts in Hjørland (2016b).
The final words in the chapter are the acknowledgement of the importance of theory and a tribute to
Merton’s sociology of science. Yes, webometrics should certainly be considered from the perspectives of
the sociology and philosophy of science, among other metasciences.
10. John M. Carroll: Theorizing the unprecedented
I will limit my review of this chapter to declare my full support for the conclusion: “A programmatic
implication of this chapter is that information science and technology should take scenarios more seriously
as theoretical objects” (p. 200). I could add that to raise the question, as did Hahn (2003), “What has
information science contributed to the world?” seems equally important: Our visions of the future should
be based in our identity, of what we have done in the past, and the lessons we have learned.
11. Bonnie Nardi: Appropriating theory
10
As already mentioned, this chapter is not about the author’s development of her own theory, but by her
discovering and appropriating an existing theory, which is “activity theory” or “cultural-historical activity”,
CHAT. Like the author, I too consider this theory important. However, its most fundamental claim that
human psychology and actions are mediated by language and other culturally developed tools, is a view
shared by many other theories (such as semiotics, hermeneutics, pragmatism, paradigm theory and social
epistemology). I certainly find this family of theories not just fruitful, but strongly necessary for the further
development of the information sciences (but badly represented in the present book). Although Nardi
argues for CHAT in human computer interaction and thus for the design of IT-products, she also confesses
that much good design is made without theory. Her most important argument (p. 210) is perhaps that
unless you compare theories, you are unable to see the relative strengths and weaknesses of the theories
you use, explicitly or implicitly).
12. Andrew Dillon: Theory for design: The case of reading.
This chapter is about human interaction with textual information in both print and electronic media. It
argues that the sentences such as “reading from paper is faster than reading from screens” are
problematic. In order to be answered meaningfully it should be specified what kind of text, for what
purpose the text is read, etc. The author has developed a theoretical model for such analyses. He writes a
lot about the psychology of reading but argues that “the information sciences must find a level of
theoretical insight that serves its purpose, and this will inevitably require theories that are not just derived
from existing [=other] disciplines. To do this requires those of us in the field to take the steps of theory
production and to share those steps with others [in the field]” (p. 237).
13. Jerome McGann: The poverty of theory; or, the education of Jerome McGann.
This chapter is written by a leading scholar in digital humanities and editorial philology/text studies. It is
written in the third person and is extremely self-critical and ironic. An example of a main point is that the
11
author as expert in book studies turned to computers to discover that he knew nothing of books! The field
he is writing about is certainly relevant for information studies (I know only one person from information
studies working in this field, Mats Dahlström). Some of the important conclusions are: (1) McGann “found
he no longer knew how to separate his scholarly from his political life” (p. 243), (2) That the convention
developed out of nineteenth-century British models of the series of Oxford English Text editions turned out
to be troublesome (p. 245), and (3) “That the scholarly edition —any effort at scholarly editing, for that
matter—was itself a theoretical move of a special and crucial kind: an act of literary interpretation carried
out performatively, as an act of textual representation” (p. 250-251).
14. Hilary S. Crew: Illuminating Daughter-mother narratives in young adult fiction.
This chapter has in my opinion nothing to do with the information sciences. Because librarianship and
information studies are about mediating all domains, this does not imply that any writing in any discipline is
part of information studies. This misunderstanding is one of the reasons our field is in a crisis. By including
this chapter, the editor implicitly says that it is about theory development in the information sciences and
that it could be used as inspiration for students and researchers in our field.
15. David Bawden: The noblest pleasure: Theories of understanding in the information sciences.
Bawden is interested in domain theory (chemistry, in particular) and considers information science to be a
metascience. He is also interested in Shannon’s information theory, in Bertie Brookes’ theory based on Karl
Popper, among others. These are general theories of information science, but Bawden also writes:
“[I]t follows that it is unreasonable to expect there to be “a theory” of information science
specifically, or of the information sciences more generally. Rather, there will be a range of
theories, dealing with different aspects of the subject,”(p. 287). ”
12
Bawden is one of the few researchers who demonstrates interests in the field as a whole and at the same
time contributes to specific issues. I must admit that I would have liked more discussion about the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the different theories. Bawden has contributed, for example, to Aitchison,
Gilchrist and Bawden (2000), but I fail to see how information theory can advance this field (compare
Hjørland, 2016a) or any other field of information science. However, Bawden’s papers are well researched
and important, and always marked by his deep and sympatric wish to understand the things he writes
about.
16. Jack Meadows: Apologia pro theoria sua.
This chapter describes the career of the author from astronomy research, to researcher in the history and
philosophy of science, to information and library studies research. It comments about navigating these
different theoretical traditions. There is no overall conclusion about theory development in information
science, and for the reviewer it is disappointing that no stronger conclusions from the background in
astronomy and the philosophy of science are drawn. One of the things mentioned en passant could, in my
opinion, be generalized as the most fundamental principle for the field: “[I]t became evident that research
groups could sometimes be at loggerheads, and that this might affect their refereeing of each other’s work
for publication.” Yes, indeed, every level of the information chain, every actor in knowledge production,
information dissemination and use is of course based on views of the knowledge/information
communicated. Therefore, different phenomena at the deepest level can be explained by explicit or implicit
theories of the actors.
Conclusion
This book is important because theory development is important and because it presents views and
experiences by leading scholars related to information science.
13
However, one of the things I missed in the book was information about the editor’s positions and overall
view. It would have been a good thing in the introductory chapter to include a brief overview of related
books and a statement about how she considers the present book fitting into the existing literature (for
example, lbekwe-SanJuan & Dousa, 2013 and Leckie, Given & Buschman, 2010).
The selection of authors, views and subfields subtopics can, of course, be discussed. There are no papers in
knowledge organization, information literacy, or social media such as Wikipedia. There is very little
discussion of the different identities of the information sciences (and the relations between information
studies and other fields such as computer studies, cognitive sciences, sociology and philosophy of science
etc.).
A number of chapters described empirical research and theory developed from these. There is, however,
not much about theoretical studies as such, about theoretical, historical and philosophical methods for
studying theories (although mentioned in chapter one). In the chapters about empirical research (e.g.
chapter 3 on browsing and chapter 5 on distance collaboration) the impression is that we learned much
about the specific subfield, but the question remains how useful this is for theory development in other
subfields. There are very few named theories in the book (and the index sometimes fails to refer to
theoretical positions, even if they are mentioned, e.g. postmodernism, p. 316).
Returning to the starting point about the current state of information science, the book confirms the
impression of a fragmented field by presenting 16 different voices rather than tendencies towards
synthesis. I see this as partly a consequence of the individualistic focus of the book.
14
Nonetheless, the book is important by providing a snapshot of information science and a platform for
further considerations. Hopefully, it will be followed by more books and discussions about theoretical
issues in information science(s). This is urgent.
Birger Hjørland
Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen,
6 Birketinget, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
Email birger.hjorland@hum.ku.dk
References:
Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A., & Bawden, D. (2000). Thesaurus construction and use. A practical manual. 4.
edition. Chicago, Ill. : Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Åström, F. (2006). The social and intellectual development of library and information science. Umeå: Dept.
of Sociology. Diss. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:145144/FULLTEXT01
Bawden, D. (2015). On not being a weak discipline. Blog: The Occasional Informationist irregular thoughts
on the information sciences. July 6, 2015 http://theoccasionalinformationist.com/blog/
Buckland, M. (1991a). Information and information systems. New York: Greenwood Press.
Buckland, M. (1991b). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 42(5),
351-360.
15
Case, D.O. (2012). Looking for information. A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and
behavior. Third edition. Bingley: Emerald.
Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy and other essays on contemporary thought. New
York: Holt.
Fugmann, R. (1994). Galileo and the inverse precision-recall relationship. Knowledge Organization, 21(3),
153–154.
Goguen, J. A. (1997). Towards a Social, Ethical Theory of Information. In: G. Bowker et al. (Eds.). Social
science research, technical systems and cooperative work. Beyond the great divide (pp. 27-56). Erlbaum
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
Hahn, T. B. (2003). What has information science contributed to the world? Bulletin of the American Society
for Information Science & Technology, 29(4): 2-3.
Hjørland, B. (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 217-237.
Hjørland, B. (2016a). Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval?
Knowledge Organization, in press.
Hjørland, B. (2016b). Informetrics needs a foundation in the theory of science. In C. Sugimoto (Ed.).
Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication (pp.20-46). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
16
lbekwe-SanJuan, F., & Dousa, T. (red.). (2013). Fundamental notions of information communication and
knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ingwersen, P. & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn: Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Leckie, G. J.; Given, L. M. & Buschman, J. E. (2010). Critical theory for library and information science.
Exploring the social from across the disciplines. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Madsen, D. (2016). Liberating interdisciplinarity from myth. An exploration of the discursive construction of
identities in information studies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Article
first published online: 23 DEC 2015. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23622
Nolin, J., & Åstrøm, F. (2010). Turning weakness into strength: Strategies for future LIS. Journal of
Documentation, 66(1), 7–27.
Oxford English Dictionary, Information, sense 2c. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Robertson, S. (2000). Salton award lecture: On theoretical arguments in information retrieval. Talk given at
SIGIR 2000, Athens, July 2000. ACM SIGIR Forum, 34(1), 1–10. Retrieved from
http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~ser/papers/salton_lecture_web.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, Fl.: St Lucie Press (originally written 1921).
17
Whitley, R. R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
18
Recommended