1 - My primary question is why it's so important for Information Science to focus on what appears to be a communally accepted definition of data, information and knowledge. Does having a firm definition, or the semantic analyses, present anything new or add to the discussion of information science? Would a flexible definition make it too difficult to study information?
2 - Does the fact that information, knowledge and data have to be mediated/interpreted through signs (357) make this discussion of what constitutes data, knowledge and information more complicated? Is the ambiguity in this discussion not about the words themselves, but instead (as Queneau would describe them) a 'language ache'?
3 - Zin concludes with the statement that his work does not replace one's "personal quest to ground one's positions on solid theoretical foundations"? How has his survey clarified - or muddied - interpretations of data, information and knowledge? Is he, in a way, providing a communal lit review of these definitions?
1. I am interested in how a professional field reaches consensus on who is considered to a “top scholar”? Is this the researcher’s personal opinion, or qualified by the number of citations made to a particular scholar, or is it determined in some other manner?
2. Although stated in the article that nearly all of the panel members chose to adopt non-metaphysical, human-centered, cognitive-based, propositional approaches for defining D-I-K I am interested in discussing how these definitions might be different if the participants had chosen a different or more eclectic approach.
3. I am interested in how the Delphi approach itself may have influenced the findings and how the results may have been different if another research methodology had been used such as a content analysis or a survey approach. Is there a preferred hierarchy about which methodologies yield the most valid results?
1. I have to say this is a great paper by which I can overview more than forty definitions about information and the relationships among information, data and knowledge. However, the conclusion of the paper seemed not to an end. In the 5 conceptual models that the author concludes, which one fits the situation of real world most? What is the upside and downside of each model? 2. This paper, at least, proved one of my claim that information is an ambiguous word so that an ubiquitous definition is impossible to be made. However, we can tell common things in the 5 models that data is in the universal domain and knowledge is in the subject domain. Then, I'm wondering where is the boundary between the two domains? I mean, by what process that a thing moves from one domain to another? 3. In the definitions, datum is repeatedly mentioned. Here is an interesting issue. In some models, data is defined in the subject domain which means that data is sense stimuli. In this case, how could we understand the relationship between datum and data?
1. We are faced here with an enormity of definitions of DIK with some scant mentions of Wisdom among them. These definitions are in addition to those offered or clarified in other papers we have read, and while there are similarities, there does not seem to be a solid consensus. Is it useful to continue to debate these terms which can contain so many meanings? Is it useful to develop one’s own within the sphere of previous learning to guide one’s own research?
2. In dealing with these multiple definitions, would it be helpful to have more context of the various respondents to the Critical Delphi, not just their affiliations, but areas of research? Likely many of them were well-known to each other, but not all, and would this assist a less interconnected reader in understanding the reasoning behind some particular definitions?
3. Zins attempts his own broad and synthetic definition and includes the statement that “knowledge is a thought in the individual’s mind, which is characterized by the individual’s justifiable thought that it is true.” (Zins, 487) How do we define “Justifiable” here? Certainly humans are willing to believe things that empirically false, let alone untestable matters. Is “it feels right” sufficient justification for claiming a belief to be knowledge?
1. In this study, Zin states that “about 130” different definitions for the terms “data”, “information”, and “knowledge”, were provided from forty-five scholars at the “Critical Delphi” (487). While Zin points out similarities between these definitions, they are, ultimately, unique. If there are so many different definitions of the three key terms, how important should it be to set down more solid, universal definitions? Is it important that the meaning of “data”, “information”, and “knowledge” stay subjective? Is it even possible to establish concrete definitions for the terms?
2. Zin’s study noticeably ignores the concept of “wisdom”, though the term is mentioned and used in some of the definitions he provides. Is the reason for this exclusion because, as Zin stated early in the study, “such issues are rooted in various subjectivist and empiricist schools of philosophy, and are not addressed here” (480)? Or is his lack of discussion on the subject a comment that wisdom, data, information, and knowledge are not related, and thus do not belong in the same study?
3. Zin explains that the “Critical Delphi” is “composed of 57 scholars from 16 countries” and that “it is comprised of leading scholars who represent nearly all the major subfields and important aspects of the field” (480). Zin uses this panel to collect his definitions for “data”, “information”, and “knowledge”, which he goes on to analyze in order to better understand the relationships between the terms. However, while the panel was no doubt impressive, does it represent a broad enough spectrum to collect definitions from? Are scholars and experts enough – or should definitions from those without expertise and uninvolved in academia be included?
1. With so many definitions of DIK how can the IS field come to a consensus on whose definitions are useful or not? Are the seemingly endless variations of these terms actually a detriment to the defining DIK, or do the many definitions actually enrich and grow the field?
2. Zins says on 487 “that knowledge is a thought in the individual’s mind, which is characterized by the individual’s justifiable belief that is true.” I think that definition is more suited to the concept of wisdom, which I think is having confidence in one’s own knowledge which is justified by a person’s own personal experiences, beliefs, mantra, etc. I agree though that knowledge is justified by an individual. However there is always misinformation or lies which can lead to false wisdom and knowledge. How can the IS field truly define anything about information if knowledge is always somewhat skewed by a personal bias?
3. On page 488, Zins says that “undoubtedly the most common conceptual approach that represents the mainstream of the field is characterized as the non-metaphysical, human centered, cognitive based propositional approach.” Who exactly embraces this approach? Is his statement based off research from the numerous contributors to this article? Also, how long has this common conceptual approach supposedly spanned during the evolution of the IS field? How reliable and common is this “common conceptual approach?”
1) How does one draw a line between “knowledge” and “belief”? Buckland seems to conflate the two concepts, while Froehlich is one of the only theorists to point out that “a lot of our so-called truths, knowledge, or known ‘facts’ are really orthodoxy.” (483) How does one distinguish between received orthodoxies and beliefs and what Froehlich would be more likely to accept as knowledge?
2) I was surprised to observe that many of the theorists surveyed did seem to subscribe to a linear D-I-K hierarchy, with knowledge comprised of aggregated information and information comprised of aggregated data. It would be interesting to know the disciplines and backgrounds of the theorists surveyed, to see if there is any pattern of disciplines and approaches between those who accept the hierarchical model and those who challenge it.
3) A couple theorists, notably Hersh and Smiraglia, suggest a non-hierarchical and connective D-I-K theory, in which knowledge is the process by which data is organized and prioritized into information. This theory seems to account for a gap in the strictly hierarchical model—that is, the human element of how data is structured into information. Should Hersh and Smiraglia’s model also be applied to the process of information-gathering? Isn’t knowledge as important to the process of gathering relevant data as it is to the synthesis and abstraction of that data once gathered?
1. In the article, Zins cites numerous authors who claim that data is, and always has been, accepted as true. This was never explicitly stated by the authors of other articles we have read. If we accept the same theory that data = true facts, then how does the phenomena of misinformation come about? Would this result from data being intentionally falsified or is there a gap in the DIK hierarchy to explain what would have gone wrong?
2. Zins cites the following statement in pg. 480 of his article, "Information always develops inside of a cognitive system, or a knowing subject". But, for instance, can't we retrieve information from a computer? Or am I confusing this with data? I would like to know if the intent was that only sentient beings are able to develop information, or can we extend the statement to include technology systems? Is a computer able to be a "cognitive system or knowing subject"?
3. Zins wrote about the differences between private knowledge and public knowledge; the differences being pretty clear. But in a world where less and less seems private, thanks to social media, the internet, etc., doesn't it seem like people are publicizing their knowledge more and more? Is there a benefit to all knowledge being publicized, or is it important to keep knowledge (to a certain extent) privatized?
1. The author mentioned that the view "information and knowledge are synonyms" is problematic, and tried to demonstrate it by asking "could we use the term Knowledge Science rather than Information Science?" However, it seems to be unpersuasive evidence because we use the term Information Science might not because they are not synonyms, but other reasons, for example, people get used to the term "Information Science".
2. In Critical Delphi, I wonder if others' reflections mislead those scholars' points of view. I mean different critical reflections from different scholars might have different styles of criticizing: some could be aggressive while some others could be gentle. Scholars also have different character: some are stubborn while others are modest. Thus, different critical reflections impacting different scholars might lead information distortion.
3. In FIG. 1.,there were 5 models to defining D-I-K, I think it is reasonable to divide subject domain and universal domain, however, is there any possible that model 1-4 are portions of model 5? Is there any scholar's opinion could be included by others? Did those models overlap each other?
-Zins utilizes a sample of 44 panel members and collects 130 definitions of data, information and knowledge. These definitions have aspects in common yet are each unique. Most notably, these differing definitions come from an international, intercultural panel of scholars who are successful in the field of information science. Why would it benefit the field of information science to lose the convenient ambiguity of such terms when concrete definitions don’t seem to be a necessity?
-Zins proposes that his study “is focused on mapping the theoretical issues that we face while formulating coherent conceptions of data, information, and knowledge, and the conceptual approaches to resolve them, rather than on evaluating accuracy, adequacy and coherency of the panel’s definitions.” Doesn’t it feel a bit like Zins is judging the panel’s definitions by bringing in his own definition last? Furthermore, doesn’t his definition feel a bit like he’s defining his terms so her can define his terms so he can define his terms?
-Why does Zins dismiss the concept of wisdom in the DIKW hierarchy without comment?
1. The author puts forth a question with Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 in consideration. If knowledge is the product of a synthesis in mind, does it imply that this equation is the product of Einstein’s synthesis of information? We get to know the results and applications of the equation, so does that make it knowledge? Or just information? Or can it also be put forth as ‘ his knowledge is our information’, according to this context?
2. Datum is defined as the representation of concepts whereas information is representation which is intended to increase the knowledge in recipients. And knowledge comes forth as practical understanding of information. In this context is information and knowledge intertwined and are not separate stages?
3. The explanation of D-I-K phenomenon is given in terms of subjective domain (SD) and universal domain (UD). The subjective domain is defined as the inner phenomena bound in the mind of the individual and data is said to be characterized as phenomena in the universal domain. From the previous readings, I come to know that data is perceived through our senses, if that is the case, shouldn't data be characterized in the subjective domain?
1. In using the Delphi methodology, was the panel influenced by reading the responses of others? Zins does report that 23 members revisited their original response. Just like focus groups, one runs the risk of yielding group think – how does one control for that with the Critical Dephi methodology?
2. After our previous readings (and Buckland’s article in particular), I thought it would be useful to assemble definitions of data, information, knowledge and wisdom from various disciplines to help come up with a definition that would encompass the various viewpoints and necessities in the definitions. Though I find it useful to read and refer back to the different definitions, we don’t appear to be closer to a consensus. Of the five models suggested, perhaps other models could have been considered or possibly some of those suggested eliminated?
3. I didn’t think of this until I read the Fricklé article on the critique of the DIKW hierarchy, but there seems to still be overwhelming support for the DIKW theory among information professionals in academia. If we are finding holes with the theory, why do so many still subscribe to it? Could it also be how the questionnaire was presented asking for you to define the three terms together?
1. The author analyzes the exemplary citations using four criteria for the delimitation of the models that includes: Metaphysical Versus Nonmetaphysical Approaches, Human Exclusive Versus Nonexclusive Approaches, Human-Centered Approaches, and Propositional exclusive versus nonexclusive approaches. Should these four criteria be applied to data, information and knowledge the same time, or should only be applied to only one or two of them?
2. The author summarizes five models out of the exemplary citations. But these five models mainly differ in whether D-I-K falls into the universal domain or subjective domain. So do all these five models feature the same relationship between data, information and knowledge?
3. The five models are based on the definitions of the panels. Is there a tendency that people from a specific background tend to have a similar understanding of D-I-K? For example, do people with a design background tend to choose model one, while people with a librarian background tend to choose model five? If yes, why?
1. p.480 How do you determine what the "field" consists of if you also recognize that the field is interdisciplinary? 2. p.480 What is a coded invariance? 3. p.485 By this point in the reading, I have gone over too many viewpoints what was meant as information is losing meaning for me.
1. Zins section on Interrelations at the beginning of this paper does him no favors in my eyes to establish himself as a credible scholar in the field of IS. He proposes that "Information Science should explore data (information’s building blocks) and information, but not knowledge,..." Accepting the idea that "...data, information, and knowledge are part of a sequential order", should the field of IS thumb their noses at knowledge just because it is "...an entity of a higher order"?
2. According to Zins, D.I.K. are the "...basic building blocks of the field" and "...the three key concepts (D.I.K.) are interrelated, but the nature of the relations among them is debatable, as well as their meanings". It seems to me that something as important as the basic building blocks of the field should be the things that we know the most about. Can the IS field be confident in their work if the meanings and relations between the core concepts are not clearly understood?
3. On a more general note, the structure of this article is strange to me. Zins devotes the majority of the article to listing his data and only briefly analyzes the data. The reader is left with a lot of data and very little analysis and is essentially told to figure it out for themselves. This article seems like a very appropriate parallel to the understanding of data, information, and knowledge in the IS field.
1) Pg. 481 While these definitions are often phrased differently from each other, I noticed that thematically, many of them could be grouped together as alike (not all 130, but a great many). How much of the discourse about DIKW is more arguing semantics than actual different ideas and opinions?
2) Pg. 481 Why is datum used in some instances over data? I feel this should have been clarified within the paper (something like a statement on personal preference), because for a while I couldn't understand why I would see "data" listed countless times, and then 'datum' in its place with no real explanation outside of a definition.
3) Pg. 483 If this paper is to be about the differing ideas on defining data, information, and knowledge, why mention wisdom at all? Even if it is part of a quote from a researcher in this poll, why not edit the mention out? Particularly since of all 4 points of the hierarchy, wisdom is the only one people seem to share an opinion on, despite discussing it less often if at all in comparison to the rest.
1.In this article, the author introduces a large number of definitions of data, information and knowledge, and there is no doubt that properly defining these items is one of the foundations of information science.However, I am wondering that besides its significant contribution to academic research development, does it have any influence on practical activities?
2. On page 481, Raphael Capurro suggests to distinguish between 'message', 'information' and 'understanding', since all three concepts constitute the concept of communication. May I make a assumption from her idea that there might be some other mediums between data and information, such as message, document, etc?
3. On page 8, the author uses the term universal knowledge to replace objective knowledge, for the purpose of avoiding confusion about arbitrariness and truthfulness. So, my question is that how to define 'universal'? Is there a minimum amount?
1. Zins proposes the same idea which has been prevalent in many of the readings thus far, that data is objective, whereas knowledge is subjective. Would you agree that there is a more human element in knowledge?
2. Do you think Zins' sample group was the most effective for defining these concepts, meaning are scholars best suited for defining what data, information and knowledge are?
3. Zins, with this article, hopes to substantiate the foundations of Information Science. Does she succeed? Are these concepts essential to the furtherance of our field, or at least in building a solid foundation for our field? It is "information" science after all.
1.Chaim claimed that in computational systems information is the contents of databases. But why the contents of database are information instead of data?
2.Chaim mentions ‘Information is a message used by a sender to represent one or more concepts within a communication process, intend to increase knowledge in recipients. Should information be used to replace ‘knowledge’? It can only increase information, and knowledge is the result of processing information.
3.In the whole article, Chaim referred to ‘datum’ for several times, but what is the difference between ‘datum’ and ‘data’?
Zins’ presentation of data, information, and knowledge as belonging under two separate domains provides a clearer picture of the hierarchy than some of the panelists broadly defined ideas. How would he take into account contextual differences in the universal domain particularly in relation to information and knowledge? Across cultures it would seem like information and knowledge would be universal to them but perhaps not to a different culture or even the world? Would this mean there are laws of universal information and knowledge much like science has generally accepted laws?
Zin mentions that each of the panel members veered toward using non-metaphysical approaches but doesn’t knowledge by its very nature have a metaphysical element to it? It can manifest itself in the physical world by expression or integrating the information in some way but until that moment it does it possess a metaphysical quality?
In that same vein, I noticed that wisdom was mentioned a few times in conjunction with knowledge in an effort to better define knowledge itself. With Zins not including wisdom in the questionnaire does that automatically lead the panelists to apply any part of wisdom into their definition of knowledge? Or does the absence of wisdom provide a better opportunity for the panelists to better define DIK?
1. Zims asks this question himself, but it's one that's sticking with me, especially in light of the often seemingly circular (or potentially circular) arguments of Frické: are DIK(W) necessarily and immutably part of a sequential order; and, should we refute the sequential order? Should we interrogate the DIKW pyramid? Can it become a two-way or multi-way flow chart instead? How far can this interrogation go before the categories are rendered useless or even meaningless?
2. On page 484, the second paragraph of the second column, he spotlights Capurro and Hjorland's investigation of "when and why the word 'information' because associated with library schools (and this knowledge organization) and what the theoretical implications in the shift from from documents to information imply." Taking this a bit broader, what does the shift of the "library and information science" field from documents to "information" mean for the continued relevance of DIKW? What are the potential academic, theoretical, and even political implications of this shift? Does this underline Zims' contention that the differentiation between information and knowledge has been collapsed?
3. On page 487, in his consideration of "delimitations" of conceptual approaches, Zims explains why he organized his investigation by scholar rather than concepts. This reading is therefore an example of the scholar-based paper (as opposed to the more common concept-based paper, as discussed in our week two class discussion). Is this a good example? Does his organization work? What was lost or gained by this choice? How does his subsequent treatment of "conceptual approaches" follow from, illuminate, or improve the scholar-based investigation of the paper's first half?
1. The author conducted an experiment to ask forty-four panel members to define- data, information and knowledge. So what are their common perceptions on these three definitions you can get from the answers? 2. The author mentioned six distinctive concepts, which refers to the D-I-K in subjective and universal domains. For the knowledge piece in subjective domain, the author pointed out that knowledge is a thought in the individual`s mind, which is characterized by the individual`s justifiable belief that it is sure. For the knowledge piece in universal domain, he said that knowledge is a set of signs that represent the meaning (or the content) of thoughts that the individual justifiably believes that they are true. So could we make a conclusion that the knowledge in universal domain is derived from the knowledge in subjective domain and the change of the knowledge in subjective domain will lead to the change of the knowledge in universal domain? 3. Every research has flaw. So what is the flaw for this research (both designing and implementing the research) that could make us doubt the conclusions they drew?
1. When talking about the interrelations among data, information and knowledge, the author mentions that “data are the raw material for information, and information is the raw material for knowledge…should explore data and information…not knowledge”(p479). I can hardly agree with that. In my opinion, it is sure that knowledge is formed form information and information is formed from data. However, data is something useless other than makes up the information, so we don’t need to study data. And I wonder why we should explore knowledge in information science?
2. The author says that “information is empirical knowledge”, and knowledge “can be empirical and non-empirical”, so information is not “an intermediate stage between data and knowledge” (p478). I really doubt whether information and knowledge are totally different things since they are both subjective. From this point, I would like to believe knowledge is a kind of information. When we receive the information, we will analyze and understand it, and then extract knowledge from it. I think knowledge comes from information whether it is empirical or non-empirical.
3. I wonder why we should give data, information and knowledge some exactly definitions. It is so difficult because they are somewhat subjective and seems unnecessary. The author gathers 130 definitions from 45 scholars and uses different conceptual approaches to do analysis, but he still says that “formulating comprehensive and systematic definitions of data, information, and knowledge requires reflection on these two domains (S-U) and their key role in shaping our conceptions on these three constitutive concepts (D-I-K) of information science.” Why can’t we just use data, information and knowledge without defining them?
1. I was curious as to how the author chose the "leading scholars" and or even determined what the "major subfields and important aspects" of the field are and who should represent them? Depending on the methods used for either, you could have a potential biased from the author. Were they all know to the author, hence the initial 100% return rate for the first round of questions, or were they part of some larger community or organization? Looking at Appendix A, you can see the authors and their related institutions but is that enough to know why they were chosen as the experts to represent their field of study?
2. Zins states that the return rates for the questionnaires and panel discussions were relatively high, all above 60%. The author also states in the acknowledgements that the panels were “exhaustive and time consuming” and the questionnaires were up to 28 pages for 13 questions (3rd questionnaire). Were the participatory requirements (time investment) too high and could this have an effect on the outcomes and definitions that the scholars provided in their responses? Would a heavy participatory cost to the study lead to only the most opinionated in the field to respond?
3. Reading through the many definitions of data, information, knowledge, and how they relate from leading scholars in the field, showed a varied number of opinions and ideas on the subject. What does this tell us about the state of information science if the leading scholars have such nuanced ideas about fundamental building blocks of the field? How important is it to come up with universal definitions for these concepts?
Q1 On page 482, how does the interplay of information sources and the mediums they are presented on change our understanding of information behavior?
Q2 According to the article, conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge Zins discusses the roles of knowledge and information. Is getting information individually a factor in what we ultimately do with the information or how it affects our knowledge?
Q3 On page 485, the definition of information is a common discussion topic in the iSchool. I believe that there is a lot of information that is not useful. That being said thinking about the purpose of most information professionals the usefulness of information is all that matters to users. Should information professionals primarily focus on the usefulness of information?
This author of this article describes the wide variety of answers he got when he asked a large number of information science professionals what were their definitions of data information and knowledge. While these answers were similar they did not completely agree on a single definition for all three. Is it possible that the fact that the information science profession draws people from so many backgrounds and disciplines responsible for the variety of answers? Does this interdisciplinary nature of information science mean that we may never have a single definition of these terms?
In the survey of answers of what data, information, and knowledge were the author shows several responses that also define a fourth term. This term is message. The general consensus is that message is the method by which data, information, and/or knowledge are transmitted from person to person. Is it important to discuss the method of transmission of data, information, and knowledge as a separate thing when defining these terms? Is the transmission of information merely a information-as-process as described in the Buckland article?
In this article the author explains the difference between subjective, or personal knowledge and universal, or objective knowledge. Personal knowledge is knowledge that an individual holds where as universal knowledge is knowledge that is known by a larger group of people. However is it not the case that universal knowledge had to have come from somewhere? Is universal knowledge just personal knowledge that has been communicated and accepted by a large group of people?
1. After performing his analysis and concluding his findings, was the author surprised by the results? I ask this primarily in regard to the "approach" factor. And with this, how were the findings received by the members of the panel? 2. In reviewing the panel's contributed definitions of DKI, I found it easiest to understand and agree with those that appropriated more responsibility of creating some kind of meaning to the individual. Is it problematic to leave DKI definitions as an open framework? How necessary/effective is it to keep adding layers of synthesis and analysis in an effort to reach a direct definition (especially since there isn't one)? 3. On page 485, one of the panelists uses the term "conditions of knowledge" in defining knowledge. I'm intrigued by this idea--in what ways is knowledge conditional, and is it ever not?
1. I found it easy to follow Zin’s discussion of D-I-K in the subjective domain because he included good examples. I didn’t quite understand D-I-K in the universal domain as he describes D-I-K in relation to signs. I am particular confused as information is defined as knowledge, which kind of reverses the hierarchy we have been talking about. His definition of knowledge in the universal/objective domain are said to be based off the thoughts of an individual, which sounds subjective to me. I did like Michael Buckland’s citation 6 that described the social knowledge that a group can have, which helped me to understand how knowledge can exist in the universal, as other literature we have read describes it as always specific to a person.
2. Zins doesn’t talk about the wisdom part of the hierarchy, nor does it look like it was included in the study. Does wisdom fall in either the subjective or universal domains? In looking at the 5 models on page 489, there is a general trend of lower levels of the hierarchy (data and information) appearing in the universal, where as higher (information and knowledge appears in the subjective). Would it follow then that wisdom would most likely fall in the subjective realm?
3. Many definitions given, especially for data, fall back on the Latin roots or meanings for the definitions. Is this a useful technique for defining topics and uses of words many years after they were perhaps originally coined or described? We no doubt have very different ideas of the world and information than back in ancient Rome, so perhaps our definitions can be very different now.
1. Zins claims, “the formulation of systematic conceptions of data, information, and knowledge is crucial for the development of a systematic conception of Information Science.” Why is this the case? I can see how these conceptions can better help us visualize what information is, but when is a clearer definition of knowledge or data needed in the IS field? How are these useful on a day-to-day level?
2. What is knowledge management? It was mentioned in the Rowley article, as well. And why is it in the IS field?
3. I found Zins’ “Signs versus Meaning” section slightly confusing. I feel that it is more useful to relate to DIKW as “sets of signs rather than meaning,” but I can’t quite understand Zins’ reasoning behind the statement.
1. This article has the appearance of a literary review, yet instead of citing literary sources, the author surveys leading scholars. Does this qualify as a literary review?
2. Some of the scholars surveyed included "message" in their definitions. "Message" also appears in the third round of questioning in addition to DIK. Why?
3. Zins claims that if data, information and knowledge are part of a sequential order, then the exploration of knowledge should be excluded from Information Science. Why would this necessarily be the case.
1. Given the variety of definitions for the terms "data," "information," and "knowledge" (to say nothing of wisdom), to what extent is it necessary to have consensus in the IS field on the meanings of these terms? How important to the work being done in information studies is it to have codified definitions of data and information?
2. Zins mentions in the opening of the article that a common view of knowledge is that it is "the product of a synthesis in the mind of the knowing person, and exists only in his or her mind" (479). Is knowledge, therefore, even within the realm of possibilities for machines or non-human processes? For instance, solving an algebraic equation requires the application of learned skills (namely, algebra), yet Google and Wolfram-Alpha quickly return correct results for these types of problems. Does solving these types of equations, then, require knowledge or only information?
3. I specifically liked Hjorland's response to the question of knowledge (484). Hjorland states that knowledge is but a set of claims supported by evidence, and that it should always be seen as such. Might there exist any absolutes or truths? Can there exist any truths or Truth?
I just wanted to make a note on the data/datum confusion that I've seen on several questions: Data is the plural form, while datum is the singular. Same thing, but in different numbers. It can get sticky when we discuss proper usage because we tend to view data as a singular, measureless noun when we speak in abstract terms.
You can also use the definition on page 481 (in the second to last paragraph) of Zin's article to clarify the distinction between the two.
1 - My primary question is why it's so important for Information Science to focus on what appears to be a communally accepted definition of data, information and knowledge. Does having a firm definition, or the semantic analyses, present anything new or add to the discussion of information science? Would a flexible definition make it too difficult to study information?
ReplyDelete2 - Does the fact that information, knowledge and data have to be mediated/interpreted through signs (357) make this discussion of what constitutes data, knowledge and information more complicated? Is the ambiguity in this discussion not about the words themselves, but instead (as Queneau would describe them) a 'language ache'?
3 - Zin concludes with the statement that his work does not replace one's "personal quest to ground one's positions on solid theoretical foundations"? How has his survey clarified - or muddied - interpretations of data, information and knowledge? Is he, in a way, providing a communal lit review of these definitions?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I am interested in how a professional field reaches consensus on who is considered to a “top scholar”? Is this the researcher’s personal opinion, or qualified by the number of citations made to a particular scholar, or is it determined in some other manner?
ReplyDelete2. Although stated in the article that nearly all of the panel members chose to adopt non-metaphysical, human-centered, cognitive-based, propositional approaches for defining D-I-K I am interested in discussing how these definitions might be different if the participants had chosen a different or more eclectic approach.
3. I am interested in how the Delphi approach itself may have influenced the findings and how the results may have been different if another research methodology had been used such as a content analysis or a survey approach. Is there a preferred hierarchy about which methodologies yield the most valid results?
1. I have to say this is a great paper by which I can overview more than forty definitions about information and the relationships among information, data and knowledge. However, the conclusion of the paper seemed not to an end. In the 5 conceptual models that the author concludes, which one fits the situation of real world most? What is the upside and downside of each model?
ReplyDelete2. This paper, at least, proved one of my claim that information is an ambiguous word so that an ubiquitous definition is impossible to be made. However, we can tell common things in the 5 models that data is in the universal domain and knowledge is in the subject domain. Then, I'm wondering where is the boundary between the two domains? I mean, by what process that a thing moves from one domain to another?
3. In the definitions, datum is repeatedly mentioned. Here is an interesting issue. In some models, data is defined in the subject domain which means that data is sense stimuli. In this case, how could we understand the relationship between datum and data?
1. We are faced here with an enormity of definitions of DIK with some scant mentions of Wisdom among them. These definitions are in addition to those offered or clarified in other papers we have read, and while there are similarities, there does not seem to be a solid consensus. Is it useful to continue to debate these terms which can contain so many meanings? Is it useful to develop one’s own within the sphere of previous learning to guide one’s own research?
ReplyDelete2. In dealing with these multiple definitions, would it be helpful to have more context of the various respondents to the Critical Delphi, not just their affiliations, but areas of research? Likely many of them were well-known to each other, but not all, and would this assist a less interconnected reader in understanding the reasoning behind some particular definitions?
3. Zins attempts his own broad and synthetic definition and includes the statement that “knowledge is a thought in the individual’s mind, which is characterized by the individual’s justifiable thought that it is true.” (Zins, 487) How do we define “Justifiable” here? Certainly humans are willing to believe things that empirically false, let alone untestable matters. Is “it feels right” sufficient justification for claiming a belief to be knowledge?
1. In this study, Zin states that “about 130” different definitions for the terms “data”, “information”, and “knowledge”, were provided from forty-five scholars at the “Critical Delphi” (487). While Zin points out similarities between these definitions, they are, ultimately, unique. If there are so many different definitions of the three key terms, how important should it be to set down more solid, universal definitions? Is it important that the meaning of “data”, “information”, and “knowledge” stay subjective? Is it even possible to establish concrete definitions for the terms?
ReplyDelete2. Zin’s study noticeably ignores the concept of “wisdom”, though the term is mentioned and used in some of the definitions he provides. Is the reason for this exclusion because, as Zin stated early in the study, “such issues are rooted in various subjectivist and empiricist schools of philosophy, and are not addressed here” (480)? Or is his lack of discussion on the subject a comment that wisdom, data, information, and knowledge are not related, and thus do not belong in the same study?
3. Zin explains that the “Critical Delphi” is “composed of 57 scholars from 16 countries” and that “it is comprised of leading scholars who represent nearly all the major subfields and important aspects of the field” (480). Zin uses this panel to collect his definitions for “data”, “information”, and “knowledge”, which he goes on to analyze in order to better understand the relationships between the terms. However, while the panel was no doubt impressive, does it represent a broad enough spectrum to collect definitions from? Are scholars and experts enough – or should definitions from those without expertise and uninvolved in academia be included?
1. With so many definitions of DIK how can the IS field come to a consensus on whose definitions are useful or not? Are the seemingly endless variations of these terms actually a detriment to the defining DIK, or do the many definitions actually enrich and grow the field?
ReplyDelete2. Zins says on 487 “that knowledge is a thought in the individual’s mind, which is characterized by the individual’s justifiable belief that is true.” I think that definition is more suited to the concept of wisdom, which I think is having confidence in one’s own knowledge which is justified by a person’s own personal experiences, beliefs, mantra, etc. I agree though that knowledge is justified by an individual. However there is always misinformation or lies which can lead to false wisdom and knowledge. How can the IS field truly define anything about information if knowledge is always somewhat skewed by a personal bias?
3. On page 488, Zins says that “undoubtedly the most common conceptual approach that represents the mainstream of the field is characterized as the non-metaphysical, human centered, cognitive based propositional approach.” Who exactly embraces this approach? Is his statement based off research from the numerous contributors to this article? Also, how long has this common conceptual approach supposedly spanned during the evolution of the IS field? How reliable and common is this “common conceptual approach?”
1) How does one draw a line between “knowledge” and “belief”? Buckland seems to conflate the two concepts, while Froehlich is one of the only theorists to point out that “a lot of our so-called truths, knowledge, or known ‘facts’ are really orthodoxy.” (483) How does one distinguish between received orthodoxies and beliefs and what Froehlich would be more likely to accept as knowledge?
ReplyDelete2) I was surprised to observe that many of the theorists surveyed did seem to subscribe to a linear D-I-K hierarchy, with knowledge comprised of aggregated information and information comprised of aggregated data. It would be interesting to know the disciplines and backgrounds of the theorists surveyed, to see if there is any pattern of disciplines and approaches between those who accept the hierarchical model and those who challenge it.
3) A couple theorists, notably Hersh and Smiraglia, suggest a non-hierarchical and connective D-I-K theory, in which knowledge is the process by which data is organized and prioritized into information. This theory seems to account for a gap in the strictly hierarchical model—that is, the human element of how data is structured into information. Should Hersh and Smiraglia’s model also be applied to the process of information-gathering? Isn’t knowledge as important to the process of gathering relevant data as it is to the synthesis and abstraction of that data once gathered?
1. In the article, Zins cites numerous authors who claim that data is, and always has been, accepted as true. This was never explicitly stated by the authors of other articles we have read. If we accept the same theory that data = true facts, then how does the phenomena of misinformation come about? Would this result from data being intentionally falsified or is there a gap in the DIK hierarchy to explain what would have gone wrong?
ReplyDelete2. Zins cites the following statement in pg. 480 of his article, "Information always develops inside of a cognitive system, or a knowing subject". But, for instance, can't we retrieve information from a computer? Or am I confusing this with data? I would like to know if the intent was that only sentient beings are able to develop information, or can we extend the statement to include technology systems? Is a computer able to be a "cognitive system or knowing subject"?
3. Zins wrote about the differences between private knowledge and public knowledge; the differences being pretty clear. But in a world where less and less seems private, thanks to social media, the internet, etc., doesn't it seem like people are publicizing their knowledge more and more? Is there a benefit to all knowledge being publicized, or is it important to keep knowledge (to a certain extent) privatized?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The author mentioned that the view "information and knowledge are synonyms" is problematic, and tried to demonstrate it by asking "could we use the term Knowledge Science rather than Information Science?" However, it seems to be unpersuasive evidence because we use the term Information Science might not because they are not synonyms, but other reasons, for example, people get used to the term "Information Science".
ReplyDelete2. In Critical Delphi, I wonder if others' reflections mislead those scholars' points of view. I mean different critical reflections from different scholars might have different styles of criticizing: some could be aggressive while some others could be gentle. Scholars also have different character: some are stubborn while others are modest. Thus, different critical reflections impacting different scholars might lead information distortion.
3. In FIG. 1.,there were 5 models to defining D-I-K, I think it is reasonable to divide subject domain and universal domain, however, is there any possible that model 1-4 are portions of model 5? Is there any scholar's opinion could be included by others? Did those models overlap each other?
-Zins utilizes a sample of 44 panel members and collects 130 definitions of data, information and knowledge. These definitions have aspects in common yet are each unique. Most notably, these differing definitions come from an international, intercultural panel of scholars who are successful in the field of information science. Why would it benefit the field of information science to lose the convenient ambiguity of such terms when concrete definitions don’t seem to be a necessity?
ReplyDelete-Zins proposes that his study “is focused on mapping the theoretical issues that we face while formulating coherent conceptions of data, information, and knowledge, and the conceptual approaches to resolve them, rather than on evaluating accuracy, adequacy and coherency of the panel’s definitions.” Doesn’t it feel a bit like Zins is judging the panel’s definitions by bringing in his own definition last? Furthermore, doesn’t his definition feel a bit like he’s defining his terms so her can define his terms so he can define his terms?
-Why does Zins dismiss the concept of wisdom in the DIKW hierarchy without comment?
1. The author puts forth a question with Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 in consideration. If knowledge is the product of a synthesis in mind, does it imply that this equation is the product of Einstein’s synthesis of information? We get to know the results and applications of the equation, so does that make it knowledge? Or just information? Or can it also be put forth as ‘ his knowledge is our information’, according to this context?
ReplyDelete2. Datum is defined as the representation of concepts whereas information is representation which is intended to increase the knowledge in recipients. And knowledge comes forth as practical understanding of information. In this context is information and knowledge intertwined and are not separate stages?
3. The explanation of D-I-K phenomenon is given in terms of subjective domain (SD) and universal domain (UD). The subjective domain is defined as the inner phenomena bound in the mind of the individual and data is said to be characterized as phenomena in the universal domain. From the previous readings, I come to know that data is perceived through our senses, if that is the case, shouldn't data be characterized in the subjective domain?
1. In using the Delphi methodology, was the panel influenced by reading the responses of others? Zins does report that 23 members revisited their original response. Just like focus groups, one runs the risk of yielding group think – how does one control for that with the Critical Dephi methodology?
ReplyDelete2. After our previous readings (and Buckland’s article in particular), I thought it would be useful to assemble definitions of data, information, knowledge and wisdom from various disciplines to help come up with a definition that would encompass the various viewpoints and necessities in the definitions. Though I find it useful to read and refer back to the different definitions, we don’t appear to be closer to a consensus. Of the five models suggested, perhaps other models could have been considered or possibly some of those suggested eliminated?
3. I didn’t think of this until I read the Fricklé article on the critique of the DIKW hierarchy, but there seems to still be overwhelming support for the DIKW theory among information professionals in academia. If we are finding holes with the theory, why do so many still subscribe to it? Could it also be how the questionnaire was presented asking for you to define the three terms together?
1. The author analyzes the exemplary citations using four criteria for the delimitation of the models that includes: Metaphysical Versus Nonmetaphysical Approaches, Human Exclusive Versus Nonexclusive Approaches, Human-Centered Approaches, and Propositional exclusive versus nonexclusive approaches. Should these four criteria be applied to data, information and knowledge the same time, or should only be applied to only one or two of them?
ReplyDelete2. The author summarizes five models out of the exemplary citations. But these five models mainly differ in whether D-I-K falls into the universal domain or subjective domain. So do all these five models feature the same relationship between data, information and knowledge?
3. The five models are based on the definitions of the panels. Is there a tendency that people from a specific background tend to have a similar understanding of D-I-K? For example, do people with a design background tend to choose model one, while people with a librarian background tend to choose model five? If yes, why?
1. p.480 How do you determine what the "field" consists of if you also recognize that the field is interdisciplinary?
ReplyDelete2. p.480 What is a coded invariance?
3. p.485 By this point in the reading, I have gone over too many viewpoints what was meant as information is losing meaning for me.
1. Zins section on Interrelations at the beginning of this paper does him no favors in my eyes to establish himself as a credible scholar in the field of IS. He proposes that "Information Science should explore data (information’s building blocks) and information, but not knowledge,..." Accepting the idea that "...data, information, and knowledge are part of a sequential order", should the field of IS thumb their noses at knowledge just because it is "...an entity of a higher order"?
ReplyDelete2. According to Zins, D.I.K. are the "...basic building blocks of the field" and "...the three key concepts (D.I.K.) are interrelated, but the nature of the relations among them is debatable, as well as their meanings". It seems to me that something as important as the basic building blocks of the field should be the things that we know the most about. Can the IS field be confident in their work if the meanings and relations between the core concepts are not clearly understood?
3. On a more general note, the structure of this article is strange to me. Zins devotes the majority of the article to listing his data and only briefly analyzes the data. The reader is left with a lot of data and very little analysis and is essentially told to figure it out for themselves. This article seems like a very appropriate parallel to the understanding of data, information, and knowledge in the IS field.
1) Pg. 481 While these definitions are often phrased differently from each other, I noticed that thematically, many of them could be grouped together as alike (not all 130, but a great many). How much of the discourse about DIKW is more arguing semantics than actual different ideas and opinions?
ReplyDelete2) Pg. 481 Why is datum used in some instances over data? I feel this should have been clarified within the paper (something like a statement on personal preference), because for a while I couldn't understand why I would see "data" listed countless times, and then 'datum' in its place with no real explanation outside of a definition.
3) Pg. 483 If this paper is to be about the differing ideas on defining data, information, and knowledge, why mention wisdom at all? Even if it is part of a quote from a researcher in this poll, why not edit the mention out? Particularly since of all 4 points of the hierarchy, wisdom is the only one people seem to share an opinion on, despite discussing it less often if at all in comparison to the rest.
1.In this article, the author introduces a large number of definitions of data, information and knowledge, and there is no doubt that properly defining these items is one of the foundations of information science.However, I am wondering that besides its significant contribution to academic research development, does it have any influence on practical activities?
ReplyDelete2. On page 481, Raphael Capurro suggests to distinguish between 'message', 'information' and 'understanding', since all three concepts constitute the concept of communication. May I make a assumption from her idea that there might be some other mediums between data and information, such as message, document, etc?
3. On page 8, the author uses the term universal knowledge to replace objective knowledge, for the purpose of avoiding confusion about arbitrariness and truthfulness. So, my question is that how to define 'universal'? Is there a minimum amount?
1. Zins proposes the same idea which has been prevalent in many of the readings thus far, that data is objective, whereas knowledge is subjective. Would you agree that there is a more human element in knowledge?
ReplyDelete2. Do you think Zins' sample group was the most effective for defining these concepts, meaning are scholars best suited for defining what data, information and knowledge are?
3. Zins, with this article, hopes to substantiate the foundations of Information Science. Does she succeed? Are these concepts essential to the furtherance of our field, or at least in building a solid foundation for our field? It is "information" science after all.
1.Chaim claimed that in computational systems information is the contents of databases. But why the contents of database are information instead of data?
ReplyDelete2.Chaim mentions ‘Information is a message used by a sender to represent one or more concepts within a communication process, intend to increase knowledge in recipients. Should information be used to replace ‘knowledge’? It can only increase information, and knowledge is the result of processing information.
3.In the whole article, Chaim referred to ‘datum’ for several times, but what is the difference between ‘datum’ and ‘data’?
Zins’ presentation of data, information, and knowledge as belonging under two separate domains provides a clearer picture of the hierarchy than some of the panelists broadly defined ideas. How would he take into account contextual differences in the universal domain particularly in relation to information and knowledge? Across cultures it would seem like information and knowledge would be universal to them but perhaps not to a different culture or even the world? Would this mean there are laws of universal information and knowledge much like science has generally accepted laws?
ReplyDeleteZin mentions that each of the panel members veered toward using non-metaphysical approaches but doesn’t knowledge by its very nature have a metaphysical element to it? It can manifest itself in the physical world by expression or integrating the information in some way but until that moment it does it possess a metaphysical quality?
In that same vein, I noticed that wisdom was mentioned a few times in conjunction with knowledge in an effort to better define knowledge itself. With Zins not including wisdom in the questionnaire does that automatically lead the panelists to apply any part of wisdom into their definition of knowledge? Or does the absence of wisdom provide a better opportunity for the panelists to better define DIK?
1. Zims asks this question himself, but it's one that's sticking with me, especially in light of the often seemingly circular (or potentially circular) arguments of Frické: are DIK(W) necessarily and immutably part of a sequential order; and, should we refute the sequential order? Should we interrogate the DIKW pyramid? Can it become a two-way or multi-way flow chart instead? How far can this interrogation go before the categories are rendered useless or even meaningless?
ReplyDelete2. On page 484, the second paragraph of the second column, he spotlights Capurro and Hjorland's investigation of "when and why the word 'information' because associated with library schools (and this knowledge organization) and what the theoretical implications in the shift from from documents to information imply." Taking this a bit broader, what does the shift of the "library and information science" field from documents to "information" mean for the continued relevance of DIKW? What are the potential academic, theoretical, and even political implications of this shift? Does this underline Zims' contention that the differentiation between information and knowledge has been collapsed?
3. On page 487, in his consideration of "delimitations" of conceptual approaches, Zims explains why he organized his investigation by scholar rather than concepts. This reading is therefore an example of the scholar-based paper (as opposed to the more common concept-based paper, as discussed in our week two class discussion). Is this a good example? Does his organization work? What was lost or gained by this choice? How does his subsequent treatment of "conceptual approaches" follow from, illuminate, or improve the scholar-based investigation of the paper's first half?
1. The author conducted an experiment to ask forty-four panel members to define- data, information and knowledge. So what are their common perceptions on these three definitions you can get from the answers?
ReplyDelete2. The author mentioned six distinctive concepts, which refers to the D-I-K in subjective and universal domains. For the knowledge piece in subjective domain, the author pointed out that knowledge is a thought in the individual`s mind, which is characterized by the individual`s justifiable belief that it is sure. For the knowledge piece in universal domain, he said that knowledge is a set of signs that represent the meaning (or the content) of thoughts that the individual justifiably believes that they are true. So could we make a conclusion that the knowledge in universal domain is derived from the knowledge in subjective domain and the change of the knowledge in subjective domain will lead to the change of the knowledge in universal domain?
3. Every research has flaw. So what is the flaw for this research (both designing and implementing the research) that could make us doubt the conclusions they drew?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. When talking about the interrelations among data, information and knowledge, the author mentions that “data are the raw material for information, and information is the raw material for knowledge…should explore data and information…not knowledge”(p479). I can hardly agree with that. In my opinion, it is sure that knowledge is formed form information and information is formed from data. However, data is something useless other than makes up the information, so we don’t need to study data. And I wonder why we should explore knowledge in information science?
ReplyDelete2. The author says that “information is empirical knowledge”, and knowledge “can be empirical and non-empirical”, so information is not “an intermediate stage between data and knowledge” (p478). I really doubt whether information and knowledge are totally different things since they are both subjective. From this point, I would like to believe knowledge is a kind of information. When we receive the information, we will analyze and understand it, and then extract knowledge from it. I think knowledge comes from information whether it is empirical or non-empirical.
3. I wonder why we should give data, information and knowledge some exactly definitions. It is so difficult because they are somewhat subjective and seems unnecessary. The author gathers 130 definitions from 45 scholars and uses different conceptual approaches to do analysis, but he still says that “formulating comprehensive and systematic definitions of data, information, and knowledge requires reflection on these two domains (S-U) and their key role in shaping our conceptions on these three constitutive concepts (D-I-K) of information science.” Why can’t we just use data, information and knowledge without defining them?
1. I was curious as to how the author chose the "leading scholars" and or even determined what the "major subfields and important aspects" of the field are and who should represent them? Depending on the methods used for either, you could have a potential biased from the author. Were they all know to the author, hence the initial 100% return rate for the first round of questions, or were they part of some larger community or organization? Looking at Appendix A, you can see the authors and their related institutions but is that enough to know why they were chosen as the experts to represent their field of study?
ReplyDelete2. Zins states that the return rates for the questionnaires and panel discussions were relatively high, all above 60%. The author also states in the acknowledgements that the panels were “exhaustive and time consuming” and the questionnaires were up to 28 pages for 13 questions (3rd questionnaire). Were the participatory requirements (time investment) too high and could this have an effect on the outcomes and definitions that the scholars provided in their responses? Would a heavy participatory cost to the study lead to only the most opinionated in the field to respond?
3. Reading through the many definitions of data, information, knowledge, and how they relate from leading scholars in the field, showed a varied number of opinions and ideas on the subject. What does this tell us about the state of information science if the leading scholars have such nuanced ideas about fundamental building blocks of the field? How important is it to come up with universal definitions for these concepts?
Q1 On page 482, how does the interplay of information sources and the mediums they are presented on change our understanding of information behavior?
ReplyDeleteQ2 According to the article, conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge Zins discusses the roles of knowledge and information. Is getting information individually a factor in what we ultimately do with the information or how it affects our knowledge?
Q3 On page 485, the definition of information is a common discussion topic in the iSchool. I believe that there is a lot of information that is not useful. That being said thinking about the purpose of most information professionals the usefulness of information is all that matters to users. Should information professionals primarily focus on the usefulness of information?
This author of this article describes the wide variety of answers he got when he asked a large number of information science professionals what were their definitions of data information and knowledge. While these answers were similar they did not completely agree on a single definition for all three. Is it possible that the fact that the information science profession draws people from so many backgrounds and disciplines responsible for the variety of answers? Does this interdisciplinary nature of information science mean that we may never have a single definition of these terms?
ReplyDeleteIn the survey of answers of what data, information, and knowledge were the author shows several responses that also define a fourth term. This term is message. The general consensus is that message is the method by which data, information, and/or knowledge are transmitted from person to person. Is it important to discuss the method of transmission of data, information, and knowledge as a separate thing when defining these terms? Is the transmission of information merely a information-as-process as described in the Buckland article?
In this article the author explains the difference between subjective, or personal knowledge and universal, or objective knowledge. Personal knowledge is knowledge that an individual holds where as universal knowledge is knowledge that is known by a larger group of people. However is it not the case that universal knowledge had to have come from somewhere? Is universal knowledge just personal knowledge that has been communicated and accepted by a large group of people?
1. After performing his analysis and concluding his findings, was the author surprised by the results? I ask this primarily in regard to the "approach" factor. And with this, how were the findings received by the members of the panel?
ReplyDelete2. In reviewing the panel's contributed definitions of DKI, I found it easiest to understand and agree with those that appropriated more responsibility of creating some kind of meaning to the individual. Is it problematic to leave DKI definitions as an open framework? How necessary/effective is it to keep adding layers of synthesis and analysis in an effort to reach a direct definition (especially since there isn't one)?
3. On page 485, one of the panelists uses the term "conditions of knowledge" in defining knowledge. I'm intrigued by this idea--in what ways is knowledge conditional, and is it ever not?
1. I found it easy to follow Zin’s discussion of D-I-K in the subjective domain because he included good examples. I didn’t quite understand D-I-K in the universal domain as he describes D-I-K in relation to signs. I am particular confused as information is defined as knowledge, which kind of reverses the hierarchy we have been talking about. His definition of knowledge in the universal/objective domain are said to be based off the thoughts of an individual, which sounds subjective to me. I did like Michael Buckland’s citation 6 that described the social knowledge that a group can have, which helped me to understand how knowledge can exist in the universal, as other literature we have read describes it as always specific to a person.
ReplyDelete2. Zins doesn’t talk about the wisdom part of the hierarchy, nor does it look like it was included in the study. Does wisdom fall in either the subjective or universal domains? In looking at the 5 models on page 489, there is a general trend of lower levels of the hierarchy (data and information) appearing in the universal, where as higher (information and knowledge appears in the subjective). Would it follow then that wisdom would most likely fall in the subjective realm?
3. Many definitions given, especially for data, fall back on the Latin roots or meanings for the definitions. Is this a useful technique for defining topics and uses of words many years after they were perhaps originally coined or described? We no doubt have very different ideas of the world and information than back in ancient Rome, so perhaps our definitions can be very different now.
1. Zins claims, “the formulation of systematic conceptions of data, information, and knowledge is crucial for the development of a systematic conception of Information Science.” Why is this the case? I can see how these conceptions can better help us visualize what information is, but when is a clearer definition of knowledge or data needed in the IS field? How are these useful on a day-to-day level?
ReplyDelete2. What is knowledge management? It was mentioned in the Rowley article, as well. And why is it in the IS field?
3. I found Zins’ “Signs versus Meaning” section slightly confusing. I feel that it is more useful to relate to DIKW as “sets of signs rather than meaning,” but I can’t quite understand Zins’ reasoning behind the statement.
1. This article has the appearance of a literary review, yet instead of citing literary sources, the author surveys leading scholars. Does this qualify as a literary review?
ReplyDelete2. Some of the scholars surveyed included "message" in their definitions. "Message" also appears in the third round of questioning in addition to DIK. Why?
3. Zins claims that if data, information and knowledge are part of a sequential order, then the exploration of knowledge should be excluded from Information Science. Why would this necessarily be the case.
1. Given the variety of definitions for the terms "data," "information," and "knowledge" (to say nothing of wisdom), to what extent is it necessary to have consensus in the IS field on the meanings of these terms? How important to the work being done in information studies is it to have codified definitions of data and information?
ReplyDelete2. Zins mentions in the opening of the article that a common view of knowledge is that it is "the product of a synthesis in the mind of the knowing person, and exists only in his or her mind" (479). Is knowledge, therefore, even within the realm of possibilities for machines or non-human processes? For instance, solving an algebraic equation requires the application of learned skills (namely, algebra), yet Google and Wolfram-Alpha quickly return correct results for these types of problems. Does solving these types of equations, then, require knowledge or only information?
3. I specifically liked Hjorland's response to the question of knowledge (484). Hjorland states that knowledge is but a set of claims supported by evidence, and that it should always be seen as such. Might there exist any absolutes or truths? Can there exist any truths or Truth?
I just wanted to make a note on the data/datum confusion that I've seen on several questions: Data is the plural form, while datum is the singular. Same thing, but in different numbers. It can get sticky when we discuss proper usage because we tend to view data as a singular, measureless noun when we speak in abstract terms.
ReplyDeleteYou can also use the definition on page 481 (in the second to last paragraph) of Zin's article to clarify the distinction between the two.