Reposted due to ridiculous typos in original post.
1. On page 6, Bing summarizes both Borko's (~1970) and Dawkins's (2001) definitions of Information Science by duplicating their lists of areas with which IS is concerned. There is clearly some overlap, but the specific terms used differ. Continuing on page 7 with a summary of White and McCain's (1998) and Saracevic's (1999) list of IS "problem areas," Bing presents a "consolidated list" of 17 areas. He admits that these could be simplified. How might we choose to simplify/collapse these areas? How do they map onto the information lifecycle and DIKW pyramid as already discussed in this class?
2. As a future archivist (and current archives intern), I was struck by how these areas were mainly concerned with the needs and functions of libraries and businesses (even seeming to assume that all IS functions could generally be forced into one of these camps or the other, an idea I sensed in the Zhang and Benjamin article, as well). Dawkins's number 10, for instance, "Libraries and library services" (as distinct from number 11, "Government and legal information and issues") is narrowly focused on libraries, ignoring archives, records management, and associated practice areas.
3. I was also interested in the brief discussion, on page 17, of Ellis et. al's 1999 claim that both Information Science and Information Systems are both "'subordinate faculties' due to their lack of power in the university system." Has the increased organization and dynamism of the I-Schools movement changed this at all? (This article was published in 2009.)
1 - The primary conflict I see identified between IS and CS is that information science tends to focus on the subjective/human whereas CS is a structured environment. This is a common conflict seen between most information professionals and their user base as well - IS professionals tend to view context and structure as giving rationality and transparency to information, but users and patrons might view highly-structured, contextualized information as a blockade or and overly-rational construction that makes access challenging or the information opaque. Is there a way to mediate these two needs? Until we create technology that can fully understand and represent the human experience, are we just SOL when it comes to this tension?
2 - In looking at the complaints from the students at Cornell (12), is there a way to encompass a strong technology component into iSchool programs? There have been critiques of the way technology centered courses are run at the UT iSchool, since there are no prerequisites for any class, making it difficult for more advanced students to be challenged while others catch up, and as a technology outsider, it can be difficult to select programs that will provide a good foundation before moving into more complex coursework or topics. Again, is this one of those places where we just need to do it for ourselves? And how many times can I post that question before we start critically examining what we *are* learning, or supposed to be learning?
#2 - the idea of bringing more computer science into iSchool curriculums is an interesting one, because it raises questions about how you would go about distinguishing the field from computer science and continuing to prioritize the skills that are needed by IS professionals rather than CS ones. What would a rigorous CS curriculum for IS students look like? How would it differ from a CS program?
1. When people of the general public talk about the future of libraries, they often refer to libraries as institutions that are becoming obsolete. Some of the articles we have read, like “Envisioning an iSchool Curriculum” this week, see HCI as the central hub for information science. But what people forget, I believe, is that most individuals naturally seek contact with other human beings. As Wang writes in his article on pg. 9, ‘To IS, information is more about something that involves being human’. Will there be a time when libraries are just computers housed in a building, and people will intuitively know what they want and how to get it, or will the human element and the need to interact with a human being be ever present in the world of information?
2. In the article, Wang discusses the ambiguity of information, which makes the fields pertaining to information difficult to define. He goes on to compare different information related fields, but isn’t the ambiguity of information what allows it to be such an interdisciplinary field? If information were more easily definable, I wonder if it would foster the same kind of collaboration between disciplines?
3. On pg. 11, Wang cites an author who claimed that information professionals will become ‘knowledge prospectors’. I must say, I really enjoyed that comparison. In another class, we read about an article where the author spoke of an ‘intellectual property gold rush’. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. At this point in time, though, are information professionals even having to seek out information anymore, or is it simply a gold rush of sorts, where the information is coming to them?
1 - I think the need to interact with a human will always be there in some way, whether it be pulling documents or offering reference information. Eventually, technology may get better with semantic searches, linking documents to search engines, etc. but ultimately I would argue that researchers today have difficulty finding what they need because of both technology's limitations and their own lack of awareness of research methods. As much as technology changes, there will always be people who can't find what they're looking for or who can't interact with said technology in an efficient way, or at the very least, who need directions to the bathroom.
1) On pg. 8, Wang says "while some computer scientists and educations are amazed to see the ambition of IS field, others go even further to claim that the IS is a newly found branch of computer science." Should the IS field on the whole be a bit more guarded about the boundaries of our field? That while we may share many common traits with fields like computer science, ultimately we are our own beast.
2) On pg. 13, Wang cites "An information system is a collection of interrelated components (hardware, software, procedures, people, databases) that work together to "collect (or retrieve), process, store, and distribute information to support decision-making, coordination, and control in an organization." Could information systems, by nature of its definition, be closer related to computer science than information science? Wouldn't these qualities make it effectively the bridge between the two?
3) It also says this on page 13 about information systems and the field's relationship with information science "... interesting to note that they actually treated information science as a secondary reference discipline of information systems field." How would information systems qualify themselves as above information science when IS is the theory behind their actions in a sense?
1. The authors said there should be four fundamental components: Information, Technology, People, and Organization/Society, but I think people and Or./Society are very similar. At first, they defined people is what psychologists, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists are interested in, and organization or society is the interest of many social sciences. However, they explained “People” later, and said that the information related fields are interested in people in ways, which I think are the interests of social sciences, that may differ from that of a psychologist or physician.
2. When discussed the dynamic qualities of the I-Model, the author offer an example about the dynamic of red blood cells as an equilibrium model. It said if there is any change of red blood cells, the biological system’s components will adapt to each other and reach a new balance. Nevertheless, the authors did not demonstrate clearly how people and organizations adapt to a technological change in the example of I-Model. What’s more, it is not reliable enough that the movement from stasis to disequilibrium generated research programs such as medical informatics and enterprise architectures.
3. In this article, the authors classified “Domain” in two categories: subject domain and application domain. Later, they said that there are many situations where one application domain could correspond to many subject domains while a field (subject domain) can find applications in many application domains. If so, what is the meaning for them to divide “Domain” into two categories?
1 On page 5, the author states that there are several conceptions of information science. One of them is objective approach versus cognitive approach. What are objective approaches and cognitive approaches in study of information science?
2 On page 11, it says that IS has its many unique areas that do not overlap interests from computer science, such as information users and behavior, quantitative studies on recorded knowledge and their social contexts, communication between people and literature, information policy, etc. In the field of CS, when people design a system, would them also consider the users' behavior and also social context to make the system user-friendly? Besides, what's the unique of IS except for a social research based on technology?
3 What's the relation among computer science, information technology and information system? Can we say that information science works as an combination of these three disciplines?
1. The author argues that CS overlooks the human factors of information, which is the biggest difference from IS. However, one of the primary focus of Software Engineering is the engineering process, which includes waterfall development process, spiral development process, agile development process and so on. And this entails project management and human factors. Just the “ human" in Software Engineering refers to the software engineers, instead of the end users. This difference of “human” often leads to the overlooking of the usability for developers and crappy developer tools.
2. "Griffiths identified four new roles that information professionals will play in the new millennium: a) Guidebook publisher, b) knowledge prospector, c) expedition guide, and d) knowledge interpreter " What do these four roles mean? And what do they do exactly? How would our current specializations fit into these four roles, especially the interdisciplinary fields? For example, how should we call HCI researchers?
3. Since IS has so many overlapping with the computing field, why none of the core classes in our school trains the computing thinking of iSchool students? Especially, there is also a lot of overlapping between the class of Information in Social and Cultural Context and Perspective on Information. Since the computing fields provide means for IS professional to achieve their ends, shouldn’t we provide core class teaching how to make the tools (means)?
1. I found the taxonomy on page 8 a confusing way to think about the IS discipline as I don’t think that the various components are organized well. The authors already point out that the information technologies facet fits better within the realm of computer science. I think that publish and distribution shouldn’t belong as its own component, but would fall under information science research as a way to disseminate our ideas of IS. Are there other parts that are missing? Shouldn’t be included? Combined?
2. As I was reading I thought that the article did a good job at highlighting the similarities and differences between IS and the other fields. However, their ending was quite dire as it was questioning where the IS field will go if computer science has taken over the study of information retrieval. What are the core aspects that IS studies that are not studied by other fields? We always talk about IS being multidisciplinary, but can it stand on its own or are we doomed to forever trying to draw pieces in from or lose pieces to other fields?
3. This isn’t quite a question, but I liked the author’s line on page 10: “To information professionals, computing technologies are the means but never the ends to their field.” I thought this was a good way to describe the IS’s relationship to technology in that it is not our core focus to develop technology for the sake of developing it, but that there is something to accomplish that requires a new technology. It reminds me of the Taylor article from last week that was arguing for us to remember our users when creating system designs.
1. In this article, Wang states that as technology continues to evolve, “the boundary between IS [information science] and related fields . . . has further blurred” (5). He also frequently states throughout the article how difficult it is to clearly define these related fields, and even describes Information Technology as being “a vague concept” (17). If it’s so difficult to clearly define these fields, should we even be trying to do it? Do we need clear-cut definitions with specific outlines as to what each field does? Is it even possible to do so? Furthermore, are these definitions really for in information field, or for outsiders wondering what we do?
2. Wang compares information science to three related fields in his article, including computer science. He discusses the origins of computer science, especially the initial debate about whether or not it was a legitimate academic discipline. He adds that “by the 1990s, computer science had developed a considerable body of research, knowledge, and innovation that spanned the range from theory to practice; as a result the debate about its status waned and died eventually” (9). Does the transition computer science managed to attain (from questionable legitimacy to an established field) give hope to IS? Is time the only thing the IS field really needs? Do you think that in 20 years, future IS students will be reading articles about how IS used to be deemed “vague”, but that now it’s essential? If so, should we back off trying so hard to define it and let practical experience and research do the talking for us?
3. In his last section, Wang compares information science with information technology. It seemed from his description of information technology that it was very similar to computer science. In fact, Wang even says that the two fields have “a very close relationship” (17). He points out differences between the two fields, mainly that computer science “computer science is more about the theory and algorithms of computing and pays less attention to professional practices” (17) than information technology does, but I still feel that they are nearly the same. What is the difference, if there is one, between the two? Should we think of information technology as more a subfield of computer science than of information science? Does it matter?
1. On page 10, Wang says that "to information professionals, computing technologies are the means, but never the ends of their fields." How so? I'd say that technologies are can definitely be the ends of fields, I mean, how many obsolete formats/technologies are there now? Information professionals can gather the greatest collection of knowledge or information, but if you don't have the right technology to present it properly or get the most use out of it that can seriously detract from the usefulness and accessibility of the information to the people seeking it.
2. A large part of this paper deals with differences between IS Professionals and Computer Professionals. Although these professions are merging in ways they are still distinct. Personally, computer science training is something I'm lacking and looking to learn while here at the iSchool. For those of you who you already have experience in that field, why did you choose the iSchool graduate program and not a graduate program in Computer Science or Information Technology here at UT or another university? Or, simply, why did you choose the UT iSchool?
3. On page 15, Wang says that "there is little communication between the system-centered and user-centered camps in the information systems field." In many institutions or research places I have found this to be the case. Why do you think there is a such a disconnect between these two camps? Is it because these two camps simply don't speak the right "language" to convey their needs to the other camp or is there just too much of a lack of knowledge because these fields are rooted in different curricula. Example, Wang's own discussion about the differences between IS Professionals and Computer Professionals, or the human side vs the technology side.
1) This is the second article we’ve read this week that touched on the criticism of information science as “soft” computer science. To me this criticism is part of a larger pattern of hierarchizing academic disciplines in a way that devalues the humanities and social sciences—the fact that information science is not identical to computer science is seen as a loss (of more privileged mathematical skills) rather than a gain in the IS skills that Bing lists, like understanding and accommodating users’ needs. What are some other skills that are key to the information science field that have been overlooked by the “soft computer science” rhetoric?
2) I appreciated the description of the difference between information science and information systems being that the former focuses on information/knowledge and the latter on data/information (15). Often the DIK(W) pyramid seems to be used simplistically rather than to simplify—this is one of the first examples I’ve seen of how the hierarchy can actually be used to compress complex ideas and draw useful distinctions.
1. The paper is said to differentiate IS from various other related fields. In every context, the differences are mentioned. But is Information Science as such a combination of all these fields? Can the different disciplines in IS completely separated?
2. Borko defines IS as a discipline that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces that govern the flow and use of information, and the means of processing information for optimum accessibility and usability. In this context, should managing information also be included as it determines the usability and accessibility as well?
3. Differences and similarities between computer science and Information Science are enumerated in the paper. One of the definitions of Computer Science is that it is the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information: their theory, analysis, design, efficiency, implementation, and application. In this context, is Computer Science and Information Science almost similar? What differences can be derived with respect to this definition?
1. It seems as though a great deal of the IS literature is concerned with narrowing down the scope of the discipline in order to construct a working definition of the IS field. I tend to take the approach that is given by Zins that “To information professionals, computing technologies are the means but never the ends.” While I believe this, I also think it is possible that information professionals may contribute to development of new ideas and may derive better methods of research that do not yet exist. Do others agree?
2. In the article Wang talks about utilizing “leximaps” to analyze common interests in the fields of information science and information systems. I am interested in discussing if others have taken a look at literature in the field of IS specifically and have analyzed it by topic in order to visually chart the directions that actual scholars are taking?
3. As a student with a background in design, one of my fears about pursuing a degree in information sciences is my lack of a computer science background. One of the questions I am interested in discussing is how the iSchool could better facilitate interaction between IS and CS students to develop real world projects?
1. Reading this article and others in this class it brings to attention just how broad the topic of Information Science really is. Like this article says, "...the difficulties in defining IS and delineating its territory stems from the ambiguousness and misleading nature of the term 'information'." Is this because IS as a whole is too broad a topic and this is what leads to all the differing opinions about what the field of IS really?
2. The definition that Wang quotes from Dawkins is one that I really like. I like it because, while it is very broad, it does well to encompass all the varying different aspects of IS. This sort of refers back to my first question asking if the field is too broad. As it stands now, the Dawkins definition seems to me to fit IS very well but should the goal be to provide an adequate definition or to separate the IS field into better definable categories?
3. Something that I had never thought of before reading this article was if there was some sort of group or governing body that is generally recognized as the respected authority in the IS field. If there isn't, how is a field of interest like IS started and how are other areas of study added to IS? Is it a purely organic process?
1. Because information science is more concerned with the human side of things, do you think that makes it more difficult for information scientists to understand concepts of computer science? Do you think that fundamental difference in the underlying foundations in the two fields disallows for any sort of unification to occur?
2. I know there’s a major push for iSchools to begin focusing on computer skills, even at a basic level. This is also a discussion I had in my Intro to Electronic and Digital Records class, and something which this article made me think about. How much do you think we, as information professionals, need to know, especially if we identify as archivists and librarians?
3. There’s a passage on Page 15 wherein the author discusses how those in the information systems field are taking a more user-centered approach, and mentions that information scientists could learn something from them in doing this. Is he implying that information scientists ignore the users? Doesn’t this go against the claims he made earlier on about how concerned with the user Information Science is? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting...
How a person interacts with computer hardware is particularly of interest to HCI discipline; I personally believe Information Science is contributing to this field as much as Computer Science or Information Technology, especially with the development of touch screens for more devices (phones, tablets, etc.)
Wang states "But, is the IS really capable of dealing with that many areas of information technologies, especially the software and hardware?" on page 8. I don't expect that IS professionals would program software, but would work with programmers to develop software together. By combining different expertise, they can ideally produce a better product. If the goal is to successfully communicate and partner together on projects, then all disciplines will need at least basic theory and concept understanding of each discipline.
In my opinion, the activities of an IS Professional listed in table 1 is truly lacking. I believe that an IS professional can specialize in subcategories. So the education of an IS professional would include theory, concepts, and ‘X’ - that would be common to all of these subcategories. Ideally there would be classes that address the particular knowledge for each subcategory. I believe that the discipline of IS has growth potential over the years – essentially, that one cannot learn and work in all the different areas, but will be increasingly required to specialize.
1. Why did peoples’ interest in defining IS fade since the 1990s? Was our culture simply becoming accustomed to academic ambiguity?
2. Can definitions of information science reach a point where they are so broad and all-encompassing they are no longer useful?
3. Table 1 lists the activities of IS professionals. Does this list cover the functions of professionals in our field or are there aspects of the many jobs in information science that are missing?
1. Wang compared different concepts concerning information in the paper and two of them are information science and computer science. Wang gave two activities in a table concerning IS professional and computer professional. In the table, designing information systems is one activity of IS professional and designing software is an activity of computer professional. What are the relationships between them? Like web designers and software engineers?
2. In addition to the question #1, I'm interested in the future of information studies. More and more information professionals have recognized the importance of computer technology skills to information studies. In this case, we could learn increasingly classes concerning computer programming in iSchool. How far would such a tendency go? Will iSchool become a CS-like school?
3. In the paper, Wang pointed out the difference between the information and other fields. However, would it possible that the difference results from the fact that information studies is a interdisciplinary curriculum and a combination of various fields? If it's true, what is the point of comparing I-Field with others?
1. In this article, the differences between IS and Computer Science along with those between IS and IT are fairly clear, however, the differences between IS and Information Systems seem quite murky. It seems that the only differences here are that Information Systems is a broader discipline and it focuses more on organization. Explain the differences between the two fields more clearly.
2. The author claims that "Information retrieval is the core sub-field of IS." Is this true? Doesn't this ignore the whole concept of the information life cycle?
3. Wang seems to feel that the field of Computer Science has no concern for users and their behavior. It would seem that if this were the case, it wouldn't be a very useful field. Explain.
1. Bing conclude that IS and software engineering are not very closely related as two separate fields, but it seems this conclusion is not well supported. The database system, analysis software and other software we use in IS area is also the important area in Software engineer. So how could we understand author’s point? 2. Information science is an interdisciplinary field concerned with the theoretical and practical concepts, as well as the technologies, laws, and industry dealing with knowledge transfer and the sources and so many other areas. So does it mean as a graduate student, we should has the basic knowledge in each area? How could we mater this studies? 3. Both this article and the understanding information related fields take person as the important component in information science field. I total agree with this idea. This relation between these two article illustrate IS’s difference form CS.
1. Why is the research of relationships between IS and "computing disciplines" sparse (p.5) when Wang claims six overlapping sub-fields such as "information retrieval, human-computer interaction, data mining, knowledge recovery, information systems, and database" (p.11)?
2. Why does sharing such a broad spectrum of topics as the eleven taxonomy headings (p.8) such a problem when the differences of focus have been so clearly laid out (Information Science vs. Computer Science p.8-12)?
3. Matt, you earned a PhD in Computer Science and have a [pseudo] Erdös number of 2. What would your colleagues from Brown have to say about your involvement in IS?
1. It is a curious question of how HCI ended up in IS. Computer Science is often heavily interested in “logical structure” and also efficient usage of hardware resources. This does not always result in an optimal user experience. Should HCI remain in the realm of Information Science as a study of the user results of these algorithmic systems, or should Computer Science step out of its mathematical tower to examine the user?
2. The authors examine some differences between Information Science and Information Systems as disciplinary distinctions. The University of Texas seems to combine many of these tracks and indeed does not require students to choose a ‘track’ in their major past the core courses. Does this permit greater interaction among perhaps disparate disciplines, and promote greater dialogue?
3. There is a large gap examined by the authors in the bridge between Information Science and Systems respectively, in the creation of information hardware and retrieval methods and in the study of the use and usability of the results of these methods. These two semi-disciplines seem to work at cross-purposes at times. Would a reconciliation of these studies result in a more coherent discipline?
This article mentions the lack of communication between user-centered and system-centered groups within the information system field. It seems like a lack of communication is a recurring theme amongst certain segments of the information fields and IS as well. Are we destined to have this continuous lack of communication or will the fields continue to overlap to such a degree that proper exchange of ideas take place? I assume the ischools have begun to foster this approach.
The past few weeks we have discussed the information life cycle, information management, and knowledge management and yet in this article Wang discusses the lack of overlap with business and organization courses. Because Information Science utilizes or at least attempts to utilize each of these concepts, would they not coincide with certain aspects of organizations and business as opposed to not having any connection whatsoever?
At the tail end of the article, Wang poses a few questions in regards to information retrieval. While it falls under the banner of Computer Science it also falls under the banner of Information Science. Rather than having a singular discipline claim ownership of it, wouldn’t the very nature of IR benefit from both disciplines influencing it’s direction and process?
1. The author says that ‘though problems relating to information and information processing have existed for any society in any historical period, information science (IS) as a discipline is essentially a creation of the second half of the 20th century’. I wonder if there are problems, why IS didn’t appear until 1950s, and what factors prompted the emergence of IS? 2. This article talks about the relationship between IS and three other ‘disciplines’. I can understand IS and CS are different. But I think information system and information technology are tools to solve the problems in IS and CS. So why should information technology and information system be separate disciplines? I think they are just parts of IS and CS. 3. The author mentions ‘information technology and organizational context are the two most important key elements for information systems’ (p16). My background is management information system. When I try to build and manage an information system, I tend to focus on managing information technology. But for the people in business area, they focus on the information in the system when they use it. So does that mean for different people, the domain of information system is different?
1. In this article the author states that the Information science field is very closely tied to the computer science field and several other technology fields. However in the other article we read this week state that information science is very closely tied to a number of other fields like anthropology, psychology, education, and several others. What is it about the information field that makes it so closely tied to these fields, many of which are very different? 2. In this article the author describes the relation between information science and three computer related fields, computer science, information systems, and information technology. However the author states that two other computer related fields, software engineering and computer engineering, are note related to information science at all. Do you agree with the idea that computer engineering and software engineering are not really related to information science considering the fact that you would need those fields to design the hardware and software to house and store digital records and computer files? 3. In this article the author states that the main connection between information science and computer science is the area of information retrieval. However in the Seadle and Greifeneder article they state that the main focus of information science should be human computer interfacing which is an area that also connects heavily with computer science. Which of these two areas of interest do you think is more important when examining the relationship between information science and computer science?
1. After reading the exhaustive review of the definition of IS (p.8), it was nice to also see what it is not, dealing with hardware and software. I frequently become overwhelmed with thinking about the all-encompassing field of IS but forget that there are and should be some limits, maybe naturally imposed, on how far IS will necessarily go into a certain field. Not that I think IS should be limiting itself, but that maybe there should be boundaries that are maintained to keep the field in perspective. 2. I equally found it informative to read about computer science and look at the problems that they are trying to tackle as a profession, develop effective ways to solve computing problems, and comparing it to the activities of an IS professional. It seemed to make clear that the two professions are complimentary and could/should be working together to bring their different perspectives together to produce a more meaningful product for all. 3. In the conclusion of this article (p.19), the author discusses the different and changing IS education. What should an IS education entail and why are there seemingly so many paths to the IS profession? Reading about what IS is and how it relates to other fields, do others see any of the described IS educations as more fitting than others?
1.Why do we need to discuss the relationships and differences between information science and other subjects? What do IS professionals benefit from this comparision?
2.On page 10, the author cites what Zins claimed that “information science differs from technological-based fields, such as computer science, by focusing on the contribution of these technologies to a better dissemination of knowledge”. What kind of knowledge should IS professionals focus on? Do we need to learn specialized knowledge of other fields for the purpose of offering knowledge management service?
3.When comparing the knowledge maps of Information Science and Information System, it seems that Information System do not focus much on the concepts of information, and the technologies invloved are more influenced by Computer Science. So, my third question is that what is the contribution of Information Science to Information System?
1. What factors have influenced the declining interest in defining IS since the 1990s? 2. How, and in what ways, has the list of major themes present in the field of IS changed since the late 1990s (p.7)? 3. As someone relatively unfamiliar with computer science and the technical side of IS, I appreciated this article. I found the comparison of IS and computer professionals especially interesting, and wonder what recent kinds of jobs and types of work the interaction of these two fields has created?
1. Do we really need to be “deepening the understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of IS”? In studying IS one cannot help but constantly cross into the territories of other disciplines, so it seems hardly necessary to remind us of it.
2. I’m glad we got some new definitions of information. I thought the 50 or so we’ve been working with were starting to wear thin. I particularly enjoy definition (i), “simply that which reduces uncertainty.” As there are days when I find nothing that reduces uncertainty in my life, this concept of information is philosophically intriguing.
3. One of the “problem areas” listed is “imported ideas (eg cognitive science, computer science, information theory)”. How do these ideas come to be “imported” into our field? The idea of importation and the topic of territories raise questions about how exactly one goes about studying an area outside of her own discipline, and how that area then eventually becomes incorporated.
1. Wang states near the top of p. 9 that, "[like] IS, computer science also takes as its long-term goals the personal and world Memex envisioned by Bush." My basic understanding of the Memex notion is a type of artificial intelligence, an artifice that duplicates human mental function. While I'm not qualified to debate whether this is the true goal of computer science, as an iSchool student I have to question whether this is the goal of information science. (It's not one of my goals... Am I in the wrong program?)
2. Further down the page, Wang gives a description of the debate in both computer and information science as to whether what we do is or should be considered a real or "true" science. Is this not all just a question of semantics? Of what consequence is it whether information science is considered a "true" science? Does it undermine or belittle the work being done in this field?
3. After reading the comparison of information science and information systems, I think it'd be interesting to get the perspectives of our classmates who have information systems degrees. If I recall correctly, many of our classmates from China have degrees in management information systems--what do you perceive to be the fundamental differences/similarities between IS and information systems?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReposted due to ridiculous typos in original post.
ReplyDelete1. On page 6, Bing summarizes both Borko's (~1970) and Dawkins's (2001) definitions of Information Science by duplicating their lists of areas with which IS is concerned. There is clearly some overlap, but the specific terms used differ. Continuing on page 7 with a summary of White and McCain's (1998) and Saracevic's (1999) list of IS "problem areas," Bing presents a "consolidated list" of 17 areas. He admits that these could be simplified. How might we choose to simplify/collapse these areas? How do they map onto the information lifecycle and DIKW pyramid as already discussed in this class?
2. As a future archivist (and current archives intern), I was struck by how these areas were mainly concerned with the needs and functions of libraries and businesses (even seeming to assume that all IS functions could generally be forced into one of these camps or the other, an idea I sensed in the Zhang and Benjamin article, as well). Dawkins's number 10, for instance, "Libraries and library services" (as distinct from number 11, "Government and legal information and issues") is narrowly focused on libraries, ignoring archives, records management, and associated practice areas.
3. I was also interested in the brief discussion, on page 17, of Ellis et. al's 1999 claim that both Information Science and Information Systems are both "'subordinate faculties' due to their lack of power in the university system." Has the increased organization and dynamism of the I-Schools movement changed this at all? (This article was published in 2009.)
1 - The primary conflict I see identified between IS and CS is that information science tends to focus on the subjective/human whereas CS is a structured environment. This is a common conflict seen between most information professionals and their user base as well - IS professionals tend to view context and structure as giving rationality and transparency to information, but users and patrons might view highly-structured, contextualized information as a blockade or and overly-rational construction that makes access challenging or the information opaque. Is there a way to mediate these two needs? Until we create technology that can fully understand and represent the human experience, are we just SOL when it comes to this tension?
ReplyDelete2 - In looking at the complaints from the students at Cornell (12), is there a way to encompass a strong technology component into iSchool programs? There have been critiques of the way technology centered courses are run at the UT iSchool, since there are no prerequisites for any class, making it difficult for more advanced students to be challenged while others catch up, and as a technology outsider, it can be difficult to select programs that will provide a good foundation before moving into more complex coursework or topics. Again, is this one of those places where we just need to do it for ourselves? And how many times can I post that question before we start critically examining what we *are* learning, or supposed to be learning?
#2 - the idea of bringing more computer science into iSchool curriculums is an interesting one, because it raises questions about how you would go about distinguishing the field from computer science and continuing to prioritize the skills that are needed by IS professionals rather than CS ones. What would a rigorous CS curriculum for IS students look like? How would it differ from a CS program?
Delete1. When people of the general public talk about the future of libraries, they often refer to libraries as institutions that are becoming obsolete. Some of the articles we have read, like “Envisioning an iSchool Curriculum” this week, see HCI as the central hub for information science. But what people forget, I believe, is that most individuals naturally seek contact with other human beings. As Wang writes in his article on pg. 9, ‘To IS, information is more about something that involves being human’. Will there be a time when libraries are just computers housed in a building, and people will intuitively know what they want and how to get it, or will the human element and the need to interact with a human being be ever present in the world of information?
ReplyDelete2. In the article, Wang discusses the ambiguity of information, which makes the fields pertaining to information difficult to define. He goes on to compare different information related fields, but isn’t the ambiguity of information what allows it to be such an interdisciplinary field? If information were more easily definable, I wonder if it would foster the same kind of collaboration between disciplines?
3. On pg. 11, Wang cites an author who claimed that information professionals will become ‘knowledge prospectors’. I must say, I really enjoyed that comparison. In another class, we read about an article where the author spoke of an ‘intellectual property gold rush’. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. At this point in time, though, are information professionals even having to seek out information anymore, or is it simply a gold rush of sorts, where the information is coming to them?
1 - I think the need to interact with a human will always be there in some way, whether it be pulling documents or offering reference information. Eventually, technology may get better with semantic searches, linking documents to search engines, etc. but ultimately I would argue that researchers today have difficulty finding what they need because of both technology's limitations and their own lack of awareness of research methods. As much as technology changes, there will always be people who can't find what they're looking for or who can't interact with said technology in an efficient way, or at the very least, who need directions to the bathroom.
Delete1) On pg. 8, Wang says "while some computer scientists and educations are amazed to see the ambition of IS field, others go even further to claim that the IS is a newly found branch of computer science." Should the IS field on the whole be a bit more guarded about the boundaries of our field? That while we may share many common traits with fields like computer science, ultimately we are our own beast.
ReplyDelete2) On pg. 13, Wang cites "An information system is a collection of interrelated components (hardware, software, procedures, people, databases) that work together to "collect (or retrieve), process, store, and distribute information to support decision-making, coordination, and control in an organization." Could information systems, by nature of its definition, be closer related to computer science than information science? Wouldn't these qualities make it effectively the bridge between the two?
3) It also says this on page 13 about information systems and the field's relationship with information science "... interesting to note that they actually treated information science as a secondary reference discipline of information systems field." How would information systems qualify themselves as above information science when IS is the theory behind their actions in a sense?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. The authors said there should be four fundamental components: Information, Technology, People, and Organization/Society, but I think people and Or./Society are very similar. At first, they defined people is what psychologists, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists are interested in, and organization or society is the interest of many social sciences. However, they explained “People” later, and said that the information related fields are interested in people in ways, which I think are the interests of social sciences, that may differ from that of a psychologist or physician.
ReplyDelete2. When discussed the dynamic qualities of the I-Model, the author offer an example about the dynamic of red blood cells as an equilibrium model. It said if there is any change of red blood cells, the biological system’s components will adapt to each other and reach a new balance. Nevertheless, the authors did not demonstrate clearly how people and organizations adapt to a technological change in the example of I-Model. What’s more, it is not reliable enough that the movement from stasis to disequilibrium generated research programs such as medical informatics and enterprise architectures.
3. In this article, the authors classified “Domain” in two categories: subject domain and application domain. Later, they said that there are many situations where one application domain could correspond to many subject domains while a field (subject domain) can find applications in many application domains. If so, what is the meaning for them to divide “Domain” into two categories?
1 On page 5, the author states that there are several conceptions of information science. One of them is objective approach versus cognitive approach. What are objective approaches and cognitive approaches in study of information science?
ReplyDelete2 On page 11, it says that IS has its many unique areas that do not overlap interests from computer science, such as information users and behavior, quantitative studies on recorded knowledge and their social contexts, communication between people and literature, information policy, etc. In the field of CS, when people design a system, would them also consider the users' behavior and also social context to make the system user-friendly? Besides, what's the unique of IS except for a social research based on technology?
3 What's the relation among computer science, information technology and information system? Can we say that information science works as an combination of these three disciplines?
1. The author argues that CS overlooks the human factors of information, which is the biggest difference from IS. However, one of the primary focus of Software Engineering is the engineering process, which includes waterfall development process, spiral development process, agile development process and so on. And this entails project management and human factors. Just the “ human" in Software Engineering refers to the software engineers, instead of the end users. This difference of “human” often leads to the overlooking of the usability for developers and crappy developer tools.
ReplyDelete2. "Griffiths identified four new roles that information professionals will play in the new millennium: a) Guidebook publisher, b) knowledge prospector, c) expedition guide, and d) knowledge interpreter "
What do these four roles mean? And what do they do exactly? How would our current specializations fit into these four roles, especially the interdisciplinary fields? For example, how should we call HCI researchers?
3. Since IS has so many overlapping with the computing field, why none of the core classes in our school trains the computing thinking of iSchool students? Especially, there is also a lot of overlapping between the class of Information in Social and Cultural Context and Perspective on Information. Since the computing fields provide means for IS professional to achieve their ends, shouldn’t we provide core class teaching how to make the tools (means)?
1. I found the taxonomy on page 8 a confusing way to think about the IS discipline as I don’t think that the various components are organized well. The authors already point out that the information technologies facet fits better within the realm of computer science. I think that publish and distribution shouldn’t belong as its own component, but would fall under information science research as a way to disseminate our ideas of IS. Are there other parts that are missing? Shouldn’t be included? Combined?
ReplyDelete2. As I was reading I thought that the article did a good job at highlighting the similarities and differences between IS and the other fields. However, their ending was quite dire as it was questioning where the IS field will go if computer science has taken over the study of information retrieval. What are the core aspects that IS studies that are not studied by other fields? We always talk about IS being multidisciplinary, but can it stand on its own or are we doomed to forever trying to draw pieces in from or lose pieces to other fields?
3. This isn’t quite a question, but I liked the author’s line on page 10: “To information professionals, computing technologies are the means but never the ends to their field.” I thought this was a good way to describe the IS’s relationship to technology in that it is not our core focus to develop technology for the sake of developing it, but that there is something to accomplish that requires a new technology. It reminds me of the Taylor article from last week that was arguing for us to remember our users when creating system designs.
1. In this article, Wang states that as technology continues to evolve, “the boundary between IS [information science] and related fields . . . has further blurred” (5). He also frequently states throughout the article how difficult it is to clearly define these related fields, and even describes Information Technology as being “a vague concept” (17). If it’s so difficult to clearly define these fields, should we even be trying to do it? Do we need clear-cut definitions with specific outlines as to what each field does? Is it even possible to do so? Furthermore, are these definitions really for in information field, or for outsiders wondering what we do?
ReplyDelete2. Wang compares information science to three related fields in his article, including computer science. He discusses the origins of computer science, especially the initial debate about whether or not it was a legitimate academic discipline. He adds that “by the 1990s, computer science had developed a considerable body of research, knowledge, and innovation that spanned the range from theory to practice; as a result the debate about its status waned and died eventually” (9). Does the transition computer science managed to attain (from questionable legitimacy to an established field) give hope to IS? Is time the only thing the IS field really needs? Do you think that in 20 years, future IS students will be reading articles about how IS used to be deemed “vague”, but that now it’s essential? If so, should we back off trying so hard to define it and let practical experience and research do the talking for us?
3. In his last section, Wang compares information science with information technology. It seemed from his description of information technology that it was very similar to computer science. In fact, Wang even says that the two fields have “a very close relationship” (17). He points out differences between the two fields, mainly that computer science “computer science is more about the theory and algorithms of computing and pays less attention to professional practices” (17) than information technology does, but I still feel that they are nearly the same. What is the difference, if there is one, between the two? Should we think of information technology as more a subfield of computer science than of information science? Does it matter?
1. On page 10, Wang says that "to information professionals, computing technologies are the means, but never the ends of their fields." How so? I'd say that technologies are can definitely be the ends of fields, I mean, how many obsolete formats/technologies are there now? Information professionals can gather the greatest collection of knowledge or information, but if you don't have the right technology to present it properly or get the most use out of it that can seriously detract from the usefulness and accessibility of the information to the people seeking it.
ReplyDelete2. A large part of this paper deals with differences between IS Professionals and Computer Professionals. Although these professions are merging in ways they are still distinct. Personally, computer science training is something I'm lacking and looking to learn while here at the iSchool. For those of you who you already have experience in that field, why did you choose the iSchool graduate program and not a graduate program in Computer Science or Information Technology here at UT or another university? Or, simply, why did you choose the UT iSchool?
3. On page 15, Wang says that "there is little communication between the system-centered and user-centered camps in the information systems field." In many institutions or research places I have found this to be the case. Why do you think there is a such a disconnect between these two camps? Is it because these two camps simply don't speak the right "language" to convey their needs to the other camp or is there just too much of a lack of knowledge because these fields are rooted in different curricula. Example, Wang's own discussion about the differences between IS Professionals and Computer Professionals, or the human side vs the technology side.
1) This is the second article we’ve read this week that touched on the criticism of information science as “soft” computer science. To me this criticism is part of a larger pattern of hierarchizing academic disciplines in a way that devalues the humanities and social sciences—the fact that information science is not identical to computer science is seen as a loss (of more privileged mathematical skills) rather than a gain in the IS skills that Bing lists, like understanding and accommodating users’ needs. What are some other skills that are key to the information science field that have been overlooked by the “soft computer science” rhetoric?
ReplyDelete2) I appreciated the description of the difference between information science and information systems being that the former focuses on information/knowledge and the latter on data/information (15). Often the DIK(W) pyramid seems to be used simplistically rather than to simplify—this is one of the first examples I’ve seen of how the hierarchy can actually be used to compress complex ideas and draw useful distinctions.
1. The paper is said to differentiate IS from various other related fields. In every context, the differences are mentioned. But is Information Science as such a combination of all these fields? Can the different disciplines in IS completely separated?
ReplyDelete2. Borko defines IS as a discipline that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces that govern the flow and use of information, and the means of processing information for optimum accessibility and usability. In this context, should managing information also be included as it determines the usability and accessibility as well?
3. Differences and similarities between computer science and Information Science are enumerated in the paper. One of the definitions of Computer Science is that it is the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information: their theory, analysis, design, efficiency, implementation, and application. In this context, is Computer Science and Information Science almost similar? What differences can be derived with respect to this definition?
1. It seems as though a great deal of the IS literature is concerned with narrowing down the scope of the discipline in order to construct a working definition of the IS field. I tend to take the approach that is given by Zins that “To information professionals, computing technologies are the means but never the ends.” While I believe this, I also think it is possible that information professionals may contribute to development of new ideas and may derive better methods of research that do not yet exist. Do others agree?
ReplyDelete2. In the article Wang talks about utilizing “leximaps” to analyze common interests in the fields of information science and information systems. I am interested in discussing if others have taken a look at literature in the field of IS specifically and have analyzed it by topic in order to visually chart the directions that actual scholars are taking?
3. As a student with a background in design, one of my fears about pursuing a degree in information sciences is my lack of a computer science background. One of the questions I am interested in discussing is how the iSchool could better facilitate interaction between IS and CS students to develop real world projects?
1. Reading this article and others in this class it brings to attention just how broad the topic of Information Science really is. Like this article says, "...the difficulties in defining IS and delineating its territory stems from the ambiguousness and misleading nature of the term 'information'." Is this because IS as a whole is too broad a topic and this is what leads to all the differing opinions about what the field of IS really?
ReplyDelete2. The definition that Wang quotes from Dawkins is one that I really like. I like it because, while it is very broad, it does well to encompass all the varying different aspects of IS. This sort of refers back to my first question asking if the field is too broad. As it stands now, the Dawkins definition seems to me to fit IS very well but should the goal be to provide an adequate definition or to separate the IS field into better definable categories?
3. Something that I had never thought of before reading this article was if there was some sort of group or governing body that is generally recognized as the respected authority in the IS field. If there isn't, how is a field of interest like IS started and how are other areas of study added to IS? Is it a purely organic process?
1. Because information science is more concerned with the human side of things, do you think that makes it more difficult for information scientists to understand concepts of computer science? Do you think that fundamental difference in the underlying foundations in the two fields disallows for any sort of unification to occur?
ReplyDelete2. I know there’s a major push for iSchools to begin focusing on computer skills, even at a basic level. This is also a discussion I had in my Intro to Electronic and Digital Records class, and something which this article made me think about. How much do you think we, as information professionals, need to know, especially if we identify as archivists and librarians?
3. There’s a passage on Page 15 wherein the author discusses how those in the information systems field are taking a more user-centered approach, and mentions that information scientists could learn something from them in doing this. Is he implying that information scientists ignore the users? Doesn’t this go against the claims he made earlier on about how concerned with the user Information Science is? Perhaps I’m misinterpreting...
How a person interacts with computer hardware is particularly of interest to HCI discipline; I personally believe Information Science is contributing to this field as much as Computer Science or Information Technology, especially with the development of touch screens for more devices (phones, tablets, etc.)
ReplyDeleteWang states "But, is the IS really capable of dealing with that many areas of information technologies, especially the software and hardware?" on page 8. I don't expect that IS professionals would program software, but would work with programmers to develop software together. By combining different expertise, they can ideally produce a better product. If the goal is to successfully communicate and partner together on projects, then all disciplines will need at least basic theory and concept understanding of each discipline.
In my opinion, the activities of an IS Professional listed in table 1 is truly lacking. I believe that an IS professional can specialize in subcategories. So the education of an IS professional would include theory, concepts, and ‘X’ - that would be common to all of these subcategories. Ideally there would be classes that address the particular knowledge for each subcategory. I believe that the discipline of IS has growth potential over the years – essentially, that one cannot learn and work in all the different areas, but will be increasingly required to specialize.
1. Why did peoples’ interest in defining IS fade since the 1990s? Was our culture simply becoming accustomed to academic ambiguity?
ReplyDelete2. Can definitions of information science reach a point where they are so broad and all-encompassing they are no longer useful?
3. Table 1 lists the activities of IS professionals. Does this list cover the functions of professionals in our field or are there aspects of the many jobs in information science that are missing?
1. Wang compared different concepts concerning information in the paper and two of them are information science and computer science. Wang gave two activities in a table concerning IS professional and computer professional. In the table, designing information systems is one activity of IS professional and designing software is an activity of computer professional. What are the relationships between them? Like web designers and software engineers?
ReplyDelete2. In addition to the question #1, I'm interested in the future of information studies. More and more information professionals have recognized the importance of computer technology skills to information studies. In this case, we could learn increasingly classes concerning computer programming in iSchool. How far would such a tendency go? Will iSchool become a CS-like school?
3. In the paper, Wang pointed out the difference between the information and other fields. However, would it possible that the difference results from the fact that information studies is a interdisciplinary curriculum and a combination of various fields? If it's true, what is the point of comparing I-Field with others?
1. In this article, the differences between IS and Computer Science along with those between IS and IT are fairly clear, however, the differences between IS and Information Systems seem quite murky. It seems that the only differences here are that Information Systems is a broader discipline and it focuses more on organization. Explain the differences between the two fields more clearly.
ReplyDelete2. The author claims that "Information retrieval is the core sub-field of IS." Is this true? Doesn't this ignore the whole concept of the information life cycle?
3. Wang seems to feel that the field of Computer Science has no concern for users and their behavior. It would seem that if this were the case, it wouldn't be a very useful field. Explain.
1. Bing conclude that IS and software engineering are not very closely related as two separate fields, but it seems this conclusion is not well supported. The database system, analysis software and other software we use in IS area is also the important area in Software engineer. So how could we understand author’s point?
ReplyDelete2. Information science is an interdisciplinary field concerned with the theoretical and practical concepts, as well as the technologies, laws, and industry dealing with knowledge transfer and the sources and so many other areas. So does it mean as a graduate student, we should has the basic knowledge in each area? How could we mater this studies?
3. Both this article and the understanding information related fields take person as the important component in information science field. I total agree with this idea. This relation between these two article illustrate IS’s difference form CS.
1. Why is the research of relationships between IS and "computing disciplines" sparse (p.5) when Wang claims six overlapping sub-fields such as "information retrieval, human-computer interaction, data mining, knowledge recovery, information systems, and database" (p.11)?
ReplyDelete2. Why does sharing such a broad spectrum of topics as the eleven taxonomy headings (p.8) such a problem when the differences of focus have been so clearly laid out (Information Science vs. Computer Science p.8-12)?
3. Matt, you earned a PhD in Computer Science and have a [pseudo] Erdös number of 2. What would your colleagues from Brown have to say about your involvement in IS?
1. It is a curious question of how HCI ended up in IS. Computer Science is often heavily interested in “logical structure” and also efficient usage of hardware resources. This does not always result in an optimal user experience. Should HCI remain in the realm of Information Science as a study of the user results of these algorithmic systems, or should Computer Science step out of its mathematical tower to examine the user?
ReplyDelete2. The authors examine some differences between Information Science and Information Systems as disciplinary distinctions. The University of Texas seems to combine many of these tracks and indeed does not require students to choose a ‘track’ in their major past the core courses. Does this permit greater interaction among perhaps disparate disciplines, and promote greater dialogue?
3. There is a large gap examined by the authors in the bridge between Information Science and Systems respectively, in the creation of information hardware and retrieval methods and in the study of the use and usability of the results of these methods. These two semi-disciplines seem to work at cross-purposes at times. Would a reconciliation of these studies result in a more coherent discipline?
This article mentions the lack of communication between user-centered and system-centered groups within the information system field. It seems like a lack of communication is a recurring theme amongst certain segments of the information fields and IS as well. Are we destined to have this continuous lack of communication or will the fields continue to overlap to such a degree that proper exchange of ideas take place? I assume the ischools have begun to foster this approach.
ReplyDeleteThe past few weeks we have discussed the information life cycle, information management, and knowledge management and yet in this article Wang discusses the lack of overlap with business and organization courses. Because Information Science utilizes or at least attempts to utilize each of these concepts, would they not coincide with certain aspects of organizations and business as opposed to not having any connection whatsoever?
At the tail end of the article, Wang poses a few questions in regards to information retrieval. While it falls under the banner of Computer Science it also falls under the banner of Information Science. Rather than having a singular discipline claim ownership of it, wouldn’t the very nature of IR benefit from both disciplines influencing it’s direction and process?
1. The author says that ‘though problems relating to information and information processing have existed for any society in any historical period, information science (IS) as a discipline is essentially a creation of the second half of the 20th century’. I wonder if there are problems, why IS didn’t appear until 1950s, and what factors prompted the emergence of IS?
ReplyDelete2. This article talks about the relationship between IS and three other ‘disciplines’. I can understand IS and CS are different. But I think information system and information technology are tools to solve the problems in IS and CS. So why should information technology and information system be separate disciplines? I think they are just parts of IS and CS.
3. The author mentions ‘information technology and organizational context are the two most important key elements for information systems’ (p16). My background is management information system. When I try to build and manage an information system, I tend to focus on managing information technology. But for the people in business area, they focus on the information in the system when they use it. So does that mean for different people, the domain of information system is different?
1. In this article the author states that the Information science field is very closely tied to the computer science field and several other technology fields. However in the other article we read this week state that information science is very closely tied to a number of other fields like anthropology, psychology, education, and several others. What is it about the information field that makes it so closely tied to these fields, many of which are very different?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the author describes the relation between information science and three computer related fields, computer science, information systems, and information technology. However the author states that two other computer related fields, software engineering and computer engineering, are note related to information science at all. Do you agree with the idea that computer engineering and software engineering are not really related to information science considering the fact that you would need those fields to design the hardware and software to house and store digital records and computer files?
3. In this article the author states that the main connection between information science and computer science is the area of information retrieval. However in the Seadle and Greifeneder article they state that the main focus of information science should be human computer interfacing which is an area that also connects heavily with computer science. Which of these two areas of interest do you think is more important when examining the relationship between information science and computer science?
1. After reading the exhaustive review of the definition of IS (p.8), it was nice to also see what it is not, dealing with hardware and software. I frequently become overwhelmed with thinking about the all-encompassing field of IS but forget that there are and should be some limits, maybe naturally imposed, on how far IS will necessarily go into a certain field. Not that I think IS should be limiting itself, but that maybe there should be boundaries that are maintained to keep the field in perspective.
ReplyDelete2. I equally found it informative to read about computer science and look at the problems that they are trying to tackle as a profession, develop effective ways to solve computing problems, and comparing it to the activities of an IS professional. It seemed to make clear that the two professions are complimentary and could/should be working together to bring their different perspectives together to produce a more meaningful product for all.
3. In the conclusion of this article (p.19), the author discusses the different and changing IS education. What should an IS education entail and why are there seemingly so many paths to the IS profession? Reading about what IS is and how it relates to other fields, do others see any of the described IS educations as more fitting than others?
1.Why do we need to discuss the relationships and differences between information science and other subjects? What do IS professionals benefit from this comparision?
ReplyDelete2.On page 10, the author cites what Zins claimed that “information science differs from technological-based fields, such as computer science, by focusing on the contribution of these technologies to a better dissemination of knowledge”. What kind of knowledge should IS professionals focus on? Do we need to learn specialized knowledge of other fields for the purpose of offering knowledge management service?
3.When comparing the knowledge maps of Information Science and Information System, it seems that Information System do not focus much on the concepts of information, and the technologies invloved are more influenced by Computer Science. So, my third question is that what is the contribution of Information Science to Information System?
1. What factors have influenced the declining interest in defining IS since the 1990s?
ReplyDelete2. How, and in what ways, has the list of major themes present in the field of IS changed since the late 1990s (p.7)?
3. As someone relatively unfamiliar with computer science and the technical side of IS, I appreciated this article. I found the comparison of IS and computer professionals especially interesting, and wonder what recent kinds of jobs and types of work the interaction of these two fields has created?
1. Do we really need to be “deepening the understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of IS”? In studying IS one cannot help but constantly cross into the territories of other disciplines, so it seems hardly necessary to remind us of it.
ReplyDelete2. I’m glad we got some new definitions of information. I thought the 50 or so we’ve been working with were starting to wear thin. I particularly enjoy definition (i), “simply that which reduces uncertainty.” As there are days when I find nothing that reduces uncertainty in my life, this concept of information is philosophically intriguing.
3. One of the “problem areas” listed is “imported ideas (eg cognitive science, computer science, information theory)”. How do these ideas come to be “imported” into our field? The idea of importation and the topic of territories raise questions about how exactly one goes about studying an area outside of her own discipline, and how that area then eventually becomes incorporated.
1. Wang states near the top of p. 9 that, "[like] IS, computer science also takes as its long-term goals the personal and world Memex envisioned by Bush." My basic understanding of the Memex notion is a type of artificial intelligence, an artifice that duplicates human mental function. While I'm not qualified to debate whether this is the true goal of computer science, as an iSchool student I have to question whether this is the goal of information science. (It's not one of my goals... Am I in the wrong program?)
ReplyDelete2. Further down the page, Wang gives a description of the debate in both computer and information science as to whether what we do is or should be considered a real or "true" science. Is this not all just a question of semantics? Of what consequence is it whether information science is considered a "true" science? Does it undermine or belittle the work being done in this field?
3. After reading the comparison of information science and information systems, I think it'd be interesting to get the perspectives of our classmates who have information systems degrees. If I recall correctly, many of our classmates from China have degrees in management information systems--what do you perceive to be the fundamental differences/similarities between IS and information systems?