1. I was concerned with Zhang and Benjamin's decision to leave out humanities fields like English and History in their litany of I-School origins (p. 1934). If public policy and psychology are included, why not English? I understand the increasing reliance on Computer Science-based scholarship and interdisciplinarity, but ignoring the long history of bibliographic and textual studies from the field of English seems short-sighted (especially since arguments about how to define a "text vs. a "work" and tortured discussions about the concept of authorship currently make up the bulk of each week's discussion in my "Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions" class!).
2. On page 1939, in the section on "Societal Implications," the authors focus primarily on unintended consequences of technology. This short treatment - in a single paragraph - reminded me of the excellent book "In The Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations" by Jerry Mander, which explodes the myth of technological neutrality and explores the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" technologies and suggests radical ways in which people, groups, organizations, and cultures might determine different technologies' impact along the spectrum from one to the other. The second paragraph of this section refers the reader to a 1999 article by Nardi and O'Day about local implementations of technologies, with a "humane and ecological point of view." I am deeply interested in exploring this scholarship further.
3. In their conclusion, Zhang and Benjamin's language made me realize that they are postulating the "I-model" and "I-field" as separate, but closely related to, "the other fields, such as MIS, LIS, and HCI." Up until this point, I had been under the impression that MIS, LIS, HCI (and, indeed other fields, named and unnamed herein) comprised IS. Is this another chicken-and-egg situation? How dependent is IS upon these other fields? In what ways does it constitute a separate field? Or am I misunderstanding this? Or are Zhang and Benjamin wrong?
I agree that it's a big limitation to leave out the humanities, but it could have been a methodology issue. Humanities disciplines have a different understanding of research, where the hypothesis grows/changes and isn't necessarily tested empirically, but perhaps textually/visually. I think a lot of this is changing/growing as Digital Humanities gains popularity, but it's difficult to quantitatively assess textual studies in the same way one can assess public policy and psychology. The more abstract nature of humanities research tends to present an ongoing conflict, especially if you read humanist scholars comment on "the archive" which is generally viewed as an abstracted stand-in for bureaucracy, control, and epistemological struggle, as opposed to an actual physical location.
1 - While I agree with the authors’ assertion that society will generally trend towards equilibrium with these four factors (1038) I’m not so sure I see that in a professional capacity, or in the various curricula at iSchools. Is the professional infrastructure of Information Science just slower to adapt as a result of bureaucracy and inadequate access to resources? Is it because in order to effectively make use of new technologies and adaptations, we need to develop a standardized system for coping with these rapid changes?
2 - In the authors’ analysis that certain topics may shift our equilibrium or interests (e.g. cyber security) how can an iSchool usefully accommodate all of these shifts in academia? Are more elective classes the answer, or is there a way to effectively incorporate all of these ‘trending’ issues into a comprehensive educational program? If there’s a field students are strongly pulled towards, but the faculty research or interest is lacking, how can the student body effectively orchestrate any sort of meaningful change to get more out of their education?
1. In the conclusion of their article, the authors mention that the I-model is a great tool for many different reasons, including being used for research purposes. Would it behoove us, in the beginning stages of our literature reviews, to employ the I-model to help us decide where there are gaps in the literature and what ‘links’ (if we looks at the figures provided in the article) we are most interested in?
2. On pg. 1940, the authors state that ‘beliefs and behaviors also became the critical factor in determining the success or failure of the new information system’. Is this to imply that all technologies have either met with success or failure depending on the will of the people? And is this to say that it is a few people who are deciding what is worthwhile or the masses? Or both? For technologies that have failed, is it because it was aimed at the wrong audience? The authors write that our cognitive abilities directly affect how we view technology. So if you show something new – like when you try to teach your grandmother how to use email – to someone who doesn’t have the will or ability to understand it, it is only logical that they will disregard it as silly or useless because they simply don’t care and trying to understand makes them feel unintelligent.
3. In this article, the authors try to conceptualize everything by using the I-Model. In general, it seems to be a fairly all-encompassing model with many applications. But I wonder if the authors, who talk about information fields as something ‘dynamic’ have considered if the I-Model is truly adaptable to new fields and new focuses within information domains. Towards the end, I feel that they claimed that the model could be employed for various uses, but to what extent will it be able to help conceptualize the future of the information fields?
1 On page 1943, the author gives figures of LIS, HCI and MIS. He uses the thickness of the line to describe the focus of these disciplines, but how does the author decide the weight of the line, based on what?
2 In the end, the author brings about a question that what are the similarities and differences between the I-field and other information field. Can we use I-Model to evaluate other disciplines? Can we call I-Model is a kind of method?
3 How about other components of information field related to the I-Model, such as semantic problems?
1) On page 1936 Zhang and Benjamin list their four components: Information, Technology, People and Organization/Society. Why is it that so few of our readings that deal with talking specifically about information (rather than a group's trouble handling it) exclude the human factor in most explanations? Is this a normal thing, and if so, why is that?
2) On pg. 1940, the authors write "Technology itself was not enough to solve all the organizational problems and optimize the equilibrium. In the case, the people component was the most decisive component, which played the vital role on the implementation of IT enabled change." Do many groups try to use technology as a way to achieve equilibrium without people? I.E., the tired "if you just provide the computer and Internet access, everything will be fine" argument? Or that somehow, just by having the best technology available, people will just be better at their job?
3) Towards the end, on page 1945, Zhang writes about the potential for collaborations with IS and different fields using the I-Model as a guide. Because of this and the theme of several other papers we have read regarding computer science's relationship with IS -- why do we always talk about collaborations with computer science and other technology driven fields but not social sciences like anthropology? Is the relationship between the two just seen as a given with no need to explore?
#1 - I have been wondering this too! Having always thought of information science as a fairly human-centered discipline, it has definitely struck me that a lot of our readings talk about information existing in a vacuum rather than information as something that is created by and for other people and that must be handled and facilitated by human beings. Based on what Zhang and Benjamin describe in the I-Model, it would stand to reason that library science (rather than IS) articles would be much more heavily human-centered, but this is just conjecture, as we haven't really drawn from library science in our readings for this class so far.
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. The I-model with the four fundamental components is great and useful. Furthermore, the dynamic nature and equilibrium nature make this model less rigid and can be applied to many fields. But I wonder does the equilibrium of I-model require certain proportion for each component to describe a information field?Should the information component have a priority as a research subject? Otherwise, this model could be too broad. For example, management science deals with people and organizations primarily, but also encompass the society, technology and information components.
2. The difference between the previous models describing information related fields and the I-model is that I-model has org. & society as the forth fundamental component. But I wonder as a scientific model, should the components of this model be different self-contained modules? If so, what’s the fundamental difference between people and org. & society? Would there be any overlapping between these two components?
3. Should a field have all the four fundamental components to be eligible to be called Information Related Field? What if a field only has two of those? What about traditional library science where ICT is not necessarily involved?
1. How could the I-model be applied to the archives field? Is the emphasis on certain components similar to that of library science?
2. I find the separation between the People and Organization & Society components to be a bit blurry. Are these really different? Is one contained in the other?
3. Can the I-model be applied to our own iSchool curriculum to identify areas of study or components that might be missing in our education or research?
1. In their article, Zhang and Benjamin describe the way the fundamental components of the I-field used to look – three components instead of four. The three former components were “Information, People, and Information Technology” (1936). The authors, however, argue that there should be four components. They state, “We believe that owing to the nature of the information related fields, there should be four fundamental components that these fields all possess: Information, Technology, People, and Organization/Society” (1936). They claim that this is a broader view than its predecessor, but is it too broad? When explaining the components in detail further in the article, they claim that “people” basically means “who” is using the technology and their adaptive skills, and that an organization/society are groups of people “who share certain values, beliefs, goals, institutions, and processes” (1937). Wouldn't this definition allow either Organization/Society to be collapsed into the People component or vice versa? Are these two components different and significant enough to stand alone?
2. Later in the article, Zhang and Benjamin discuss the additional components (aside from the core four) needed in the I-model: domain and context. They spend time defining and exemplifying the difference between subject and application domain, and how context determines how the core components work together (1938-9). While I agree that domain and context are important additions to the core, are they the only two that should be included when thinking about the I-model? The information field is obviously complex – shouldn't more supplemental components be included in order to create the I-model? Are the components of “domain” and “context” broad enough to cover everything?
3. At the end of their article, Zhang and Benjamin attempt to answer some of the questions they posed in their introduction – especially “what is the I-field?” (1945). I feel like they only kind of answer this question. In their conclusion they state that “Studying an emerging discipline is a difficult task” (1946), and, while that’s true, is there another reason why the simple question “what is the I-field?” is such a difficult one? Could it be that the I-field is something we’ve had all along, and we just haven’t called it that? This is very similar to the discussion we had in class. According to the I-model (Fig. 3, 1945), the I-field seems to be one that connects the four “core” components across different domains and contexts. Haven’t we been doing that, in some way or other, all along? Is the I-field really “emerging”?
1) The article’s proposal of the I-Model raises similar questions to those found in our discussions of the information-life-cycle model. Is the I-Model a descriptive tool that accounts for all the factors and interrelationships that are inherent to the information field, or is it a prescriptive model designed to help information scientists account for and prioritize everything they should be paying attention to?
2) Like many of these articles, this one emphasized the interdisciplinarity of the information field. Generally this interdisciplinarity has been framed in a positive light, as a variety of knowledges and skills are necessary for any information profession. As we continue to explore this, though, I have questions about whether there are any drawbacks to the information field—and especially iSchool curriculums—being so broad. At the end of the day, iSchools are primarily professional programs rather than academic ones, and the high degree of interdisciplinarity can make it difficult to focus on the skills necessary for one’s future career. (I know that what I need from the iSchool is very different from what a future archivist or MIS professional would need.) How can we mediate this without making the information field too narrow?
1. My views are closely aligned to the information model outlined by Zhang & Benjamin that “information with the help of technology can provide capabilities to people and to society in various domains and contexts.” However, one problem with this notion rests on the problem that technology might not always be the best solution to help people and society in certain contexts. For example, those with no electricity. Is there a more universal model that the information sciences can adopt that doesn’t exclude those who cannot or chose not to use technology?
2. I liked the concept of equilibrium that Kegan & Lahey set forth but am uncertain how one would quantify such a process in the IS field or if the process is naturally evolving. Also, I am interested in discussing the differences and similarities of subject domain and application domain and how they interact with one another.
3. This article gave a much better explanation of the overall field of IS and how it is interrelated with other fields such as MIS and HCI and I liked that it didn’t place one focus of study as the center of the field. With that being said, the article still left me a little unclear on how much the iSchool fits into the bigger picture of some of these different disciplines, especially those with
1. Something that has bothered me since I first heard about the iSchool at UT and other iSchools is the use of the "i". I don't know when this trend started but it was popularized with Apple's line of products (iMac, iPod, etc.). Ever since the release of these products, I have a difficulty taking anything with the iName format seriously. The use of the trend seems like the people using it are trying to take advantage of a trend and can't stand on it's own merits. For instance, other schools simply use the name of the area of study when referring to itself or perhaps a persons name followed by the name of the are of study. Perhaps if iSchools followed more traditional, established pattern it would be more easily accepted.
2. The I-Model in this article seems like nothing more than a list of broad categories that the authors suggest are a part of all IS areas of study and are the cause for the interdisciplinary nature of the IS field. The Authors suggest say that ""We...expect that the I-model can be applied to entail specific research programs within an information related field..." "...thus provide(ing) directions and opportunities to advance research in the information related fields." Is this anything other than just suggesting areas for IS scholars to research?
3. "The uniqueness of the I-field is its holistic and consistent perspective of socially purposeful information with technology support, and any phenomena surrounding it." The term "socially purposeful" is interesting to me. Isn't all information socially purposeful in one way or another to different people? If it is, why is it specifically used to differentiate "socially purposeful" from all other information?
1. A three component view of the information field is discussed, the components being information, people and information technology. Can we say information technology can be a sub component of information as it involves manipulation of information through technology? If so, can this be re framed as a two component field with just information and people?
2. The I Model is said to help in re examining historical cases by revealing certain aspects of the past research that were not revealed before. How far is this acceptable? Will this cause a change in the past research that the researcher might not approve of? What are the cons in this analysis?
3. The authors mention various potential uses of the I Model and conclude that it can be extended to examine case studies, research projects, education programs and curricula concerns. I’m interested in knowing whether the I Model can be used to propose an ISchool curriculum like the one in the paper ‘Envisioning an I-School Curriculum' or improvise it.
1. The authors discuss how technology isn’t necessarily a major component of information science, while acknowledging that, as fields are constantly changing and evolving, this won’t always be the case. Do you think, considering that the article was written six years ago, that their opinion on this matter would be different?
2. Towards the end of the article, the authors discuss how “the uniqueness of the I-fieldis its holistic and consistent perspective of socially purposeful information with technology support, and any phenomena surrounding it (p. 1945)” and mentions how studies that were not traditionally thought of as information-related can now fit into this I-field. In thinking towards the future, I’m curious what this would mean for Information Science and maybe more so, would these areas of study somehow be integrated into Information Science? I guess I’m just interested in what the landscape of the I-field would look like.
3. Are Zhang and Benjamin saying that the interplay of the fundamental components of the I-model create information systems? Is this definition of an information system different from others we’ve encountered?
We read many articles now in which collaboration is the main theme. For the last XX years as a country, we have moved from a manufacturing industry county to a thinking and idea formation industry country. Each industry has walked along its own path, developing ideas and thinking within its own domain. Now we are seeing that we need cooperation between domains in order to progress to the next level of thinking and idea creation. We need the knowledge of multiple domains working together to spurn new ideas, thinking, and solutions. It is only natural that schools will want to develop curriculum that fosters such thinking. It comes down the reputation - which schools are preparing the most students to be effective and productive employees now in this new industry?
How many times has this I-model been used (in particular, outside of the authors) when examining case studies, research projects, educational programs, or developing curriculum?
So in developing an I-school curriculum, would it be beneficial to create a curriculum that requires one to take core fundamentals in other fields of domains, instead of trying to develop those classes within the I-school itself?
1. In the conclusion of the paper, Zhang suggested that the I-Model is a useful tool for us to understand many fields in relation to information. However, what kinds of fields fit the I-Model most? Or what types of fields that I-Model does not apply?
2. In the paper, the authors presented four components in the I-Model and technology is just one of them and is not the centre one in the model. However, most of the people connect information with technology together in the most of time. Besides, I-field becomes a hot topic for now mainly because information technologies develop tremendously. How would the authors see the facts?
3. If I-Model is really so useful for learning a new field as the author explained, should we consider using this model as a tool to learn a new course in iSchool?
1. How well do you think iSchools do at promoting a clear, conceptual view of their programs to potential and incoming students? Would a comparison of I-fields vs. other academic fields on college websites help students choose their desired study programs better?
2. Zhang and Benjamin discuss their four-component view of the information field comprising of information, technology, people, and organization/society. How might these components apply to the different tracts at the iSchool? In my mind, I associate various components with the essential interest of each tract: information with archives, technology with information architecture, people with libraries, and organization/society as a uniting factor between all three.
3. Zang and Benjamin declare that “no scientific field can be static; it always faces environmental and internal changes thus the need to adapt.” In some senses this inability to define either information or information science feels like an uncomfortable weakness, but is it in fact a strength, giving our field the ability to constantly adapt to our changing society?
1. The authors claim that a key concept that relates several fields is "Information that has a social purpose." The term "social purpose" in reference to Information is problematic. Describe what the authors intend by that particular phrase as opposed to say "research" or "informing" purposes.
2. Zhang and Benjamin describe previous frameworks as omitting the Organization/Society component. Why would earlier scholars have left out this component. Compare and contrast the two types of models.
3. The Organization/Society component is described by the authors as groups sharing certain characteristics. They divide them according to their structure or their purpose. How would an organization/society be based on structure? Wouldn't the unifying factor have to be purpose? If not, give an example of an Organization/Society unified by structure.
1. Authors define the Organization and Society are human gatherings at different levels who share certain values, beliefs, goals, institutions, and processes. But this definition still didn’t put a clear boundary between the people and organization & society. What are the difference?
2. On page 1941, the authors talked about the fact that push the dynamic adaptation among the components of I-model. It regarded the intervention the management puts on the technology use as a role of organization component. Why is this factor not a role of people component?
3. The dynamic adaptation of four component was talked many times it this article. It regarded new technology can be the initial force, but also said management require new technology. So which one is the primary factor that push the other one.
1. Zhang and Benjamin say on page 2 that the I-field framework "should be robust, and should hold for a long enough period of time so that it can act as a guide to understand the past and present, and shed light on the potential future development of these several related fields." How often should I-fields or I-Schools redo their curriculum or mission statement to stay relevant? Should certain classes always stay or should the field always try to change as technology does?
2. In reading this article and knowing that the human element is such a large part of the iSchool and information fields, perhaps there should be some kind of psychology or human behavior classes offered at iSchools. I don't recall seeing many classes like that in the other iSchool graduate schools course offerings so maybe it should be added so that IS personnel can better understand the people they are serving.
3. On page 10, Zhang and Benjamin say that "the subject domains that are of interest to LIS can be any and all human studies.. however MIS and HCI are more concerned with the information that is produced, managed, and used by people in the application domains." If MIS and HCI are dealing with information for people shouldn't that be considered human studies as well?
In previous weeks we discussed the definition of information and how we perceive information. In this article, Zhang and Benjamin state that they’re only “concerned with information that has social purposes”(1935). Would it be useful for us, as members of the information field, to think of information in that regard more so than us to attempt to define information?
The I-Model presented in the article seems to provide a useful framework for examining information related fields. It seems like this conceptual model would be an interesting addition to IS in general. But, would it become a model worthy of more focus since it enables us to focus on research and advancements in the information field in a much more proactive manner than the DIKW or Information life cycle models we have explored?
iSchools seem to bring together each of the major fields presented by Zhang and Benjamin. Because the iSchool system integrates each Information field, would we benefit from assimilating the I-Model in an effort to coalesce the differing fields we encounter within the ischool curriculum?
1. The authors wish to separate “People” and “Organizations” as separate elements of their framework. While this is understandable at some level, ‘Organizations’ remain composed of people. The emergent behavior of ‘Organizations’ can seem inhuman in some cases, but ultimately it breaks down to human reactions. Though the authors try to explain their reasoning, I still find it to be a question if these are truly separable?
2. Another point that is raised is the context of information studied in particular areas. Each context affects the usage and distribution of information in fairly remarkable ways, which problematizes studying “information science” as a whole. Is it possible to do a survey of contextual studies, and would these results be truly relevant or useful? Is context truly so overriding?
3. This I-Model as presented by the authors is meant to permit the study of information in any context, using the four criteria presented. However, it remains limited by those contextual limits posited before, and tries to study a huge number of variables in a single model. For instance, HCI specialists will not readily wish to look at database algorithms past how users can interact with them. Are these criteria too broad to present a real model?
1. This article is very helpful for understanding information related fields. I have confused what information fields are for a long time and I always think information field is just equal to management information system. But there is a question. For example, HCI. Can we just learn HCI in information school? As we all know, HCI requires the knowledge of psychology, but Ischool cannot offer such related courses.
2. In fig 2a (p1943), it shows us the interaction among people, information, technology and org. &society in the domain of LIS. We can see that there is a weak relationship between people and technology. But I think the relationship couldn’t be so weak. Currently, we can find digital libraries; we learn digital archive in Ischool; and we even use information technology to make the process of searching a book in a library easier. So why the relationship between people and technology so weak in LIS?
3. The author says that ‘Studying an emerging discipline is a difficult task’ (p1946). And this article talks about the I-model to identify the information field. So besides what has been mentioned in this paper, are there any other difficult tasks, problems or gaps in information field? What are they?
1. In this article the authors put forth a model for the information field that rests on four fundamental components, Information, Technology, People, and Organization and Society. However when the authors discuss other models for the information field most of them only have 3 fundamental components and either drop people or organization and society or they combine the two into one component. Do you agree that people and organization and society should be separate components or should they be combined? 2. In this article the authors discuss how the information field is a dynamic field. They state that the field is always changing and generally what happens is that there will be a change in one of the components of the I-Model and that this change will cause the whole model to shift causing changes in all of the different components. Do you think that there is one specific component of the I-Model that is more dynamic, meaning that it changes more often, than the other components or are they all equally dynamic? 3. This article states that the I-Model that the authors propose can be applied to many different aspects of the information field. They state that it is particularly useful when applied to past research, current research, and proposed future research. Which of these three areas do you think that the I-Model would describe better?
1. Looking at the I-model representation of the Library and Information Science profession, I’m not sure that I agree with the representation. In the article the authors state that within LIS information system design is an important sub area but I don’t get that from the depiction. I think this could lead to a further stereotyping and assumption of the profession and not a representation of the expansions of these professions into new and less traditionally emphasized fields. 2. The I-model is expected to provide directions for research between the different information professions described by the authors. The model is extremely broad and seems to encompass more than would be necessary to accomplish this goal, but if it is to be an accurate representation it would need to be broad. I’m not sure that broad representation helps the model to explore new research areas within information fields, but I do think it provides an interesting view of the current and past research interest in fields that could be beneficial in understanding its relation to the larger information profession. 3. I wonder how others feel the framework meets the principles of the iSchool curricula proposed by Seadle and Greifeneder. Would it be a useful tool in evaluating and constructing a program for an iSchool as the authors propose it would?
Re: 3. Except for the emphasis of HCI at the center of the curriculum model proposed by Seadle and Greifeneder, the framework proposed by Zhang and Benjamin seems complimentary to the curriculum of Seadle and Greifeneder. The anthropology perspective provides an approach to managing the broad scope of the field, and specialization is not discouraged since one of the authors was "embedded" into a computer science community.
1. I don't necessarily disagree with the authors' four-pronged approach to I-model. With that, I think that this approach actually makes discussing the field of information studies easier to talk about and contextualize within a broader framework. I wonder if there's been any discussion about this approach by our iSchool administration, and their attitude towards it? 2. The authors state that "bringing an intentional focus on unintended consequences related to technology is a grave challenge for the information related fields" (p. 1939). I'd be interested to know what this could and/or has looked like for information schools and within the information studies field. Is this a common trend? What are the consequences of focusing on unintended consequences? 3. A lot of the readings we have done this semester that focus on the field of information have described it as a relatively new and emerging field. At what point will this description no longer be applicable? And given that temporal scale, where are we now? Or perhaps, given the evolutionary, dynamic and responsive nature of the field--will this description forever be fitting?
3. I find it strange, too, that IS is always considered an "emerging" discipline. Libraries, at least, have been around for quite some time and wouldn't be described as "emerging." While I understand that IS comprises a lot more than just libraries, it seems the foundations for this discipline were laid long ago. Perhaps Rachel is right--the constantly evolving nature of information and the forms it takes may mean that IS will remain fluid, constantly changing, and always to be established as new.
1. When discussing the interaction and integration of the fundamental components, the author raises a good example to assert integration's contribution to leading researching interests, as "strong integration between information and technology can lead to research interests in information architecture, digital reference service, to name a few." However, does it make sence only when information is one of the components for integration, as we might be led away from information science if we focus on interactions without information?
2. What is the definition of "people" in this article? Do the authors mean all the individuals who are involved in information activities? And what is its difference with organization and society?
3. On page 1940, the author suggests that we use these four fundamental components to reexamine historical cases or examine current cases. Do these four components always exist as a group, and can be found or defined easily and clearly in any information situation?
1. Doesn't the Memex example in Wang's article (p.4) also imply a "social purpose" to the goal of artificial intelligence? If the "key" that relates the "I-field" to other fields while showing its uniqueness is the study the "concept and phenomena of Information that has a social purpose", shouldn't we say that this field focuses on the social purposes of information so as to acknowledge implicit goals of social purpose in other fields like Computer Science?
2. I found the I-Model to be a useful tool for framing relationships between and within different fields. For example the Technology component is a strong part of modern day "information visualization" (p.1937) which also has moderate ties to the Information and People components.
1. In developing their “I-Model” the authors refer us to the intriguing concept of Weaver’s “tri-partite analysis of information”. From it they take away the idea that “information has meanings, purposes, and abilities to transform.” I am interested in the last bit, about transformation. What is doing the transforming? What is being transformed? How does the transformation process work? In the next sentence, the authors go on to say, “In other words, we are concerned with information that has social purposes.” Does this mean they are talking about transformation in an educational sense?
2. Both this article and the Seadle/Greifneder article provide us with diagrams that demonstrate a conceptual organization of Information Science. Is one better than the other? More useful in certain contexts? What would a diagram of UT’s iSchool framework look like and how would it compare to the ones in our readings?
3. The authors claim that, “It is useful to consider the connection and difference between subject domain and application domain.” Is that true? How does understanding these terms improve my work in the information field? I mean, I’m inclined to believe the authors, I’d just like the usefulness to be laid out for me more fully.
1. I much prefer Ping and Benjamin's I-model to the figure proposed by Seadle and Greifender with HCI at its center. I feel that Ping and Benjamin's model depicts appropriately the balancing act of tools and concerns dealt with in the information community.
2. The authors, in their discussion of societal implications of information studies, mention nth order effects of technologies like the automobile and go on to say that "[the] ever-increasing power of technology, especially information technology, rapidly increases the risk of these unintended consequences with serious potential consequences for society" (1939). While the authors assert that bringing an intentional focus on unintended consequences is a grave challenge for the information field, this is the first time it's been brought up to me or has even crossed my mind. And while it's great in theory, do we really know or assume that all of the potential consequences of an information technology are considered before its implementation?
1. I like the conceptual framework they came up with to illustrate the ischool curriculum, but as far as I understand, the model has already covered all the general subjects. So my question is as potential ischool curriculum, which components or relationships should we highlight?
2. When talking about the four-component information model, the author mentioned that each of these four components has been a focal interest in other fields for a long time, followed by some examples to show the focal roles of these components. So if we are involved in the information-related field, where does our advantages lie on, compared with the people in other non-interdisciplinary fields?
3. In the Interaction and Integration of the Fundamental Components sections, the authors talked about the information related fields are about the various ways of interactions among the fundamental components. Follow up with the question #1, this kind of interaction/integration can be applied to any fields, what the outstanding parts for information related field?
1. I was concerned with Zhang and Benjamin's decision to leave out humanities fields like English and History in their litany of I-School origins (p. 1934). If public policy and psychology are included, why not English? I understand the increasing reliance on Computer Science-based scholarship and interdisciplinarity, but ignoring the long history of bibliographic and textual studies from the field of English seems short-sighted (especially since arguments about how to define a "text vs. a "work" and tortured discussions about the concept of authorship currently make up the bulk of each week's discussion in my "Metadata in Cultural Heritage Institutions" class!).
ReplyDelete2. On page 1939, in the section on "Societal Implications," the authors focus primarily on unintended consequences of technology. This short treatment - in a single paragraph - reminded me of the excellent book "In The Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations" by Jerry Mander, which explodes the myth of technological neutrality and explores the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" technologies and suggests radical ways in which people, groups, organizations, and cultures might determine different technologies' impact along the spectrum from one to the other. The second paragraph of this section refers the reader to a 1999 article by Nardi and O'Day about local implementations of technologies, with a "humane and ecological point of view." I am deeply interested in exploring this scholarship further.
3. In their conclusion, Zhang and Benjamin's language made me realize that they are postulating the "I-model" and "I-field" as separate, but closely related to, "the other fields, such as MIS, LIS, and HCI." Up until this point, I had been under the impression that MIS, LIS, HCI (and, indeed other fields, named and unnamed herein) comprised IS. Is this another chicken-and-egg situation? How dependent is IS upon these other fields? In what ways does it constitute a separate field? Or am I misunderstanding this? Or are Zhang and Benjamin wrong?
I agree that it's a big limitation to leave out the humanities, but it could have been a methodology issue. Humanities disciplines have a different understanding of research, where the hypothesis grows/changes and isn't necessarily tested empirically, but perhaps textually/visually. I think a lot of this is changing/growing as Digital Humanities gains popularity, but it's difficult to quantitatively assess textual studies in the same way one can assess public policy and psychology. The more abstract nature of humanities research tends to present an ongoing conflict, especially if you read humanist scholars comment on "the archive" which is generally viewed as an abstracted stand-in for bureaucracy, control, and epistemological struggle, as opposed to an actual physical location.
Delete1 - While I agree with the authors’ assertion that society will generally trend towards equilibrium with these four factors (1038) I’m not so sure I see that in a professional capacity, or in the various curricula at iSchools. Is the professional infrastructure of Information Science just slower to adapt as a result of bureaucracy and inadequate access to resources? Is it because in order to effectively make use of new technologies and adaptations, we need to develop a standardized system for coping with these rapid changes?
ReplyDelete2 - In the authors’ analysis that certain topics may shift our equilibrium or interests (e.g. cyber security) how can an iSchool usefully accommodate all of these shifts in academia? Are more elective classes the answer, or is there a way to effectively incorporate all of these ‘trending’ issues into a comprehensive educational program? If there’s a field students are strongly pulled towards, but the faculty research or interest is lacking, how can the student body effectively orchestrate any sort of meaningful change to get more out of their education?
1. In the conclusion of their article, the authors mention that the I-model is a great tool for many different reasons, including being used for research purposes. Would it behoove us, in the beginning stages of our literature reviews, to employ the I-model to help us decide where there are gaps in the literature and what ‘links’ (if we looks at the figures provided in the article) we are most interested in?
ReplyDelete2. On pg. 1940, the authors state that ‘beliefs and behaviors also became the critical factor in determining the success or failure of the new information system’. Is this to imply that all technologies have either met with success or failure depending on the will of the people? And is this to say that it is a few people who are deciding what is worthwhile or the masses? Or both? For technologies that have failed, is it because it was aimed at the wrong audience? The authors write that our cognitive abilities directly affect how we view technology. So if you show something new – like when you try to teach your grandmother how to use email – to someone who doesn’t have the will or ability to understand it, it is only logical that they will disregard it as silly or useless because they simply don’t care and trying to understand makes them feel unintelligent.
3. In this article, the authors try to conceptualize everything by using the I-Model. In general, it seems to be a fairly all-encompassing model with many applications. But I wonder if the authors, who talk about information fields as something ‘dynamic’ have considered if the I-Model is truly adaptable to new fields and new focuses within information domains. Towards the end, I feel that they claimed that the model could be employed for various uses, but to what extent will it be able to help conceptualize the future of the information fields?
1 On page 1943, the author gives figures of LIS, HCI and MIS. He uses the thickness of the line to describe the focus of these disciplines, but how does the author decide the weight of the line, based on what?
ReplyDelete2 In the end, the author brings about a question that what are the similarities and differences between the I-field and other information field. Can we use I-Model to evaluate other disciplines? Can we call I-Model is a kind of method?
3 How about other components of information field related to the I-Model, such as semantic problems?
1) On page 1936 Zhang and Benjamin list their four components: Information, Technology, People and Organization/Society. Why is it that so few of our readings that deal with talking specifically about information (rather than a group's trouble handling it) exclude the human factor in most explanations? Is this a normal thing, and if so, why is that?
ReplyDelete2) On pg. 1940, the authors write "Technology itself was not enough to solve all the organizational problems and optimize the equilibrium. In the case, the people component was the most decisive component, which played the vital role on the implementation of IT enabled change." Do many groups try to use technology as a way to achieve equilibrium without people? I.E., the tired "if you just provide the computer and Internet access, everything will be fine" argument? Or that somehow, just by having the best technology available, people will just be better at their job?
3) Towards the end, on page 1945, Zhang writes about the potential for collaborations with IS and different fields using the I-Model as a guide. Because of this and the theme of several other papers we have read regarding computer science's relationship with IS -- why do we always talk about collaborations with computer science and other technology driven fields but not social sciences like anthropology? Is the relationship between the two just seen as a given with no need to explore?
#1 - I have been wondering this too! Having always thought of information science as a fairly human-centered discipline, it has definitely struck me that a lot of our readings talk about information existing in a vacuum rather than information as something that is created by and for other people and that must be handled and facilitated by human beings. Based on what Zhang and Benjamin describe in the I-Model, it would stand to reason that library science (rather than IS) articles would be much more heavily human-centered, but this is just conjecture, as we haven't really drawn from library science in our readings for this class so far.
Delete1. 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. The I-model with the four fundamental components is great and useful. Furthermore, the dynamic nature and equilibrium nature make this model less rigid and can be applied to many fields. But I wonder does the equilibrium of I-model require certain proportion for each component to describe a information field?Should the information component have a priority as a research subject? Otherwise, this model could be too broad. For example, management science deals with people and organizations primarily, but also encompass the society, technology and information components.
ReplyDelete2. The difference between the previous models describing information related fields and the I-model is that I-model has org. & society as the forth fundamental component. But I wonder as a scientific model, should the components of this model be different self-contained modules? If so, what’s the fundamental difference between people and org. & society? Would there be any overlapping between these two components?
3. Should a field have all the four fundamental components to be eligible to be called Information Related Field? What if a field only has two of those? What about traditional library science where ICT is not necessarily involved?
1. How could the I-model be applied to the archives field? Is the emphasis on certain components similar to that of library science?
ReplyDelete2. I find the separation between the People and Organization & Society components to be a bit blurry. Are these really different? Is one contained in the other?
3. Can the I-model be applied to our own iSchool curriculum to identify areas of study or components that might be missing in our education or research?
1. In their article, Zhang and Benjamin describe the way the fundamental components of the I-field used to look – three components instead of four. The three former components were “Information, People, and Information Technology” (1936). The authors, however, argue that there should be four components. They state, “We believe that owing to the nature of the information related fields, there should be four fundamental components that these fields all possess: Information, Technology, People, and Organization/Society” (1936). They claim that this is a broader view than its predecessor, but is it too broad? When explaining the components in detail further in the article, they claim that “people” basically means “who” is using the technology and their adaptive skills, and that an organization/society are groups of people “who share certain values, beliefs, goals, institutions, and processes” (1937). Wouldn't this definition allow either Organization/Society to be collapsed into the People component or vice versa? Are these two components different and significant enough to stand alone?
ReplyDelete2. Later in the article, Zhang and Benjamin discuss the additional components (aside from the core four) needed in the I-model: domain and context. They spend time defining and exemplifying the difference between subject and application domain, and how context determines how the core components work together (1938-9). While I agree that domain and context are important additions to the core, are they the only two that should be included when thinking about the I-model? The information field is obviously complex – shouldn't more supplemental components be included in order to create the I-model? Are the components of “domain” and “context” broad enough to cover everything?
3. At the end of their article, Zhang and Benjamin attempt to answer some of the questions they posed in their introduction – especially “what is the I-field?” (1945). I feel like they only kind of answer this question. In their conclusion they state that “Studying an emerging discipline is a difficult task” (1946), and, while that’s true, is there another reason why the simple question “what is the I-field?” is such a difficult one? Could it be that the I-field is something we’ve had all along, and we just haven’t called it that? This is very similar to the discussion we had in class. According to the I-model (Fig. 3, 1945), the I-field seems to be one that connects the four “core” components across different domains and contexts. Haven’t we been doing that, in some way or other, all along? Is the I-field really “emerging”?
1) The article’s proposal of the I-Model raises similar questions to those found in our discussions of the information-life-cycle model. Is the I-Model a descriptive tool that accounts for all the factors and interrelationships that are inherent to the information field, or is it a prescriptive model designed to help information scientists account for and prioritize everything they should be paying attention to?
ReplyDelete2) Like many of these articles, this one emphasized the interdisciplinarity of the information field. Generally this interdisciplinarity has been framed in a positive light, as a variety of knowledges and skills are necessary for any information profession. As we continue to explore this, though, I have questions about whether there are any drawbacks to the information field—and especially iSchool curriculums—being so broad. At the end of the day, iSchools are primarily professional programs rather than academic ones, and the high degree of interdisciplinarity can make it difficult to focus on the skills necessary for one’s future career. (I know that what I need from the iSchool is very different from what a future archivist or MIS professional would need.) How can we mediate this without making the information field too narrow?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. My views are closely aligned to the information model outlined by Zhang & Benjamin that “information with the help of technology can provide capabilities to people and to society in various domains and contexts.” However, one problem with this notion rests on the problem that technology might not always be the best solution to help people and society in certain contexts. For example, those with no electricity. Is there a more universal model that the information sciences can adopt that doesn’t exclude those who cannot or chose not to use technology?
ReplyDelete2. I liked the concept of equilibrium that Kegan & Lahey set forth but am uncertain how one would quantify such a process in the IS field or if the process is naturally evolving. Also, I am interested in discussing the differences and similarities of subject domain and application domain and how they interact with one another.
3. This article gave a much better explanation of the overall field of IS and how it is interrelated with other fields such as MIS and HCI and I liked that it didn’t place one focus of study as the center of the field. With that being said, the article still left me a little unclear on how much the iSchool fits into the bigger picture of some of these different disciplines, especially those with
1. Something that has bothered me since I first heard about the iSchool at UT and other iSchools is the use of the "i". I don't know when this trend started but it was popularized with Apple's line of products (iMac, iPod, etc.). Ever since the release of these products, I have a difficulty taking anything with the iName format seriously. The use of the trend seems like the people using it are trying to take advantage of a trend and can't stand on it's own merits. For instance, other schools simply use the name of the area of study when referring to itself or perhaps a persons name followed by the name of the are of study. Perhaps if iSchools followed more traditional, established pattern it would be more easily accepted.
ReplyDelete2. The I-Model in this article seems like nothing more than a list of broad categories that the authors suggest are a part of all IS areas of study and are the cause for the interdisciplinary nature of the IS field. The Authors suggest say that ""We...expect that the I-model can be applied to entail specific research programs within an information related field..." "...thus provide(ing) directions and opportunities to advance research in the information related fields." Is this anything other than just suggesting areas for IS scholars to research?
3. "The uniqueness of the I-field is its holistic and consistent perspective of socially purposeful information with technology support, and any phenomena surrounding it." The term "socially purposeful" is interesting to me. Isn't all information socially purposeful in one way or another to different people? If it is, why is it specifically used to differentiate "socially purposeful" from all other information?
ReplyDelete1. A three component view of the information field is discussed, the components being information, people and information technology. Can we say information technology can be a sub component of information as it involves manipulation of information through technology? If so, can this be re framed as a two component field with just information and people?
2. The I Model is said to help in re examining historical cases by revealing certain aspects of the past research that were not revealed before. How far is this acceptable? Will this cause a change in the past research that the researcher might not approve of? What are the cons in this analysis?
3. The authors mention various potential uses of the I Model and conclude that it can be extended to examine case studies, research projects, education programs and curricula concerns. I’m interested in knowing whether the I Model can be used to propose an ISchool curriculum like the one in the paper ‘Envisioning an I-School Curriculum' or improvise it.
1. The authors discuss how technology isn’t necessarily a major component of information science, while acknowledging that, as fields are constantly changing and evolving, this won’t always be the case. Do you think, considering that the article was written six years ago, that their opinion on this matter would be different?
ReplyDelete2. Towards the end of the article, the authors discuss how “the uniqueness of the I-fieldis its holistic and consistent perspective of socially purposeful information with technology support, and any phenomena surrounding it (p. 1945)” and mentions how studies that were not traditionally thought of as information-related can now fit into this I-field. In thinking towards the future, I’m curious what this would mean for Information Science and maybe more so, would these areas of study somehow be integrated into Information Science? I guess I’m just interested in what the landscape of the I-field would look like.
3. Are Zhang and Benjamin saying that the interplay of the fundamental components of the I-model create information systems? Is this definition of an information system different from others we’ve encountered?
We read many articles now in which collaboration is the main theme. For the last XX years as a country, we have moved from a manufacturing industry county to a thinking and idea formation industry country. Each industry has walked along its own path, developing ideas and thinking within its own domain. Now we are seeing that we need cooperation between domains in order to progress to the next level of thinking and idea creation. We need the knowledge of multiple domains working together to spurn new ideas, thinking, and solutions. It is only natural that schools will want to develop curriculum that fosters such thinking. It comes down the reputation - which schools are preparing the most students to be effective and productive employees now in this new industry?
ReplyDeleteHow many times has this I-model been used (in particular, outside of the authors) when examining case studies, research projects, educational programs, or developing curriculum?
So in developing an I-school curriculum, would it be beneficial to create a curriculum that requires one to take core fundamentals in other fields of domains, instead of trying to develop those classes within the I-school itself?
1. In the conclusion of the paper, Zhang suggested that the I-Model is a useful tool for us to understand many fields in relation to information. However, what kinds of fields fit the I-Model most? Or what types of fields that I-Model does not apply?
ReplyDelete2. In the paper, the authors presented four components in the I-Model and technology is just one of them and is not the centre one in the model. However, most of the people connect information with technology together in the most of time. Besides, I-field becomes a hot topic for now mainly because information technologies develop tremendously. How would the authors see the facts?
3. If I-Model is really so useful for learning a new field as the author explained, should we consider using this model as a tool to learn a new course in iSchool?
1. How well do you think iSchools do at promoting a clear, conceptual view of their programs to potential and incoming students? Would a comparison of I-fields vs. other academic fields on college websites help students choose their desired study programs better?
ReplyDelete2. Zhang and Benjamin discuss their four-component view of the information field comprising of information, technology, people, and organization/society. How might these components apply to the different tracts at the iSchool? In my mind, I associate various components with the essential interest of each tract: information with archives, technology with information architecture, people with libraries, and organization/society as a uniting factor between all three.
3. Zang and Benjamin declare that “no scientific field can be static; it always faces environmental and internal changes thus the need to adapt.” In some senses this inability to define either information or information science feels like an uncomfortable weakness, but is it in fact a strength, giving our field the ability to constantly adapt to our changing society?
1. The authors claim that a key concept that relates several fields is "Information that has a social purpose." The term "social purpose" in reference to Information is problematic. Describe what the authors intend by that particular phrase as opposed to say "research" or "informing" purposes.
ReplyDelete2. Zhang and Benjamin describe previous frameworks as omitting the Organization/Society component. Why would earlier scholars have left out this component. Compare and contrast the two types of models.
3. The Organization/Society component is described by the authors as groups sharing certain characteristics. They divide them according to their structure or their purpose. How would an organization/society be based on structure? Wouldn't the unifying factor have to be purpose? If not, give an example of an Organization/Society unified by structure.
1. Authors define the Organization and Society are human gatherings at different levels who share certain values, beliefs, goals, institutions, and processes. But this definition still didn’t put a clear boundary between the people and organization & society. What are the difference?
ReplyDelete2. On page 1941, the authors talked about the fact that push the dynamic adaptation among the components of I-model. It regarded the intervention the management puts on the technology use as a role of organization component. Why is this factor not a role of people component?
3. The dynamic adaptation of four component was talked many times it this article. It regarded new technology can be the initial force, but also said management require new technology. So which one is the primary factor that push the other one.
1. Zhang and Benjamin say on page 2 that the I-field framework "should be robust, and should hold for a long enough period of time so that it can act as a guide to understand the past and present, and shed light on the potential future development of these several related fields." How often should I-fields or I-Schools redo their curriculum or mission statement to stay relevant? Should certain classes always stay or should the field always try to change as technology does?
ReplyDelete2. In reading this article and knowing that the human element is such a large part of the iSchool and information fields, perhaps there should be some kind of psychology or human behavior classes offered at iSchools. I don't recall seeing many classes like that in the other iSchool graduate schools course offerings so maybe it should be added so that IS personnel can better understand the people they are serving.
3. On page 10, Zhang and Benjamin say that "the subject domains that are of interest to LIS can be any and all human studies.. however MIS and HCI are more concerned with the information that is produced, managed, and used by people in the application domains." If MIS and HCI are dealing with information for people shouldn't that be considered human studies as well?
In previous weeks we discussed the definition of information and how we perceive information. In this article, Zhang and Benjamin state that they’re only “concerned with information that has social purposes”(1935). Would it be useful for us, as members of the information field, to think of information in that regard more so than us to attempt to define information?
ReplyDeleteThe I-Model presented in the article seems to provide a useful framework for examining information related fields. It seems like this conceptual model would be an interesting addition to IS in general. But, would it become a model worthy of more focus since it enables us to focus on research and advancements in the information field in a much more proactive manner than the DIKW or Information life cycle models we have explored?
iSchools seem to bring together each of the major fields presented by Zhang and Benjamin. Because the iSchool system integrates each Information field, would we benefit from assimilating the I-Model in an effort to coalesce the differing fields we encounter within the ischool curriculum?
1. The authors wish to separate “People” and “Organizations” as separate elements of their framework. While this is understandable at some level, ‘Organizations’ remain composed of people. The emergent behavior of ‘Organizations’ can seem inhuman in some cases, but ultimately it breaks down to human reactions. Though the authors try to explain their reasoning, I still find it to be a question if these are truly separable?
ReplyDelete2. Another point that is raised is the context of information studied in particular areas. Each context affects the usage and distribution of information in fairly remarkable ways, which problematizes studying “information science” as a whole. Is it possible to do a survey of contextual studies, and would these results be truly relevant or useful? Is context truly so overriding?
3. This I-Model as presented by the authors is meant to permit the study of information in any context, using the four criteria presented. However, it remains limited by those contextual limits posited before, and tries to study a huge number of variables in a single model. For instance, HCI specialists will not readily wish to look at database algorithms past how users can interact with them. Are these criteria too broad to present a real model?
1. This article is very helpful for understanding information related fields. I have confused what information fields are for a long time and I always think information field is just equal to management information system. But there is a question. For example, HCI. Can we just learn HCI in information school? As we all know, HCI requires the knowledge of psychology, but Ischool cannot offer such related courses.
ReplyDelete2. In fig 2a (p1943), it shows us the interaction among people, information, technology and org. &society in the domain of LIS. We can see that there is a weak relationship between people and technology. But I think the relationship couldn’t be so weak. Currently, we can find digital libraries; we learn digital archive in Ischool; and we even use information technology to make the process of searching a book in a library easier. So why the relationship between people and technology so weak in LIS?
3. The author says that ‘Studying an emerging discipline is a difficult task’ (p1946). And this article talks about the I-model to identify the information field. So besides what has been mentioned in this paper, are there any other difficult tasks, problems or gaps in information field? What are they?
1. In this article the authors put forth a model for the information field that rests on four fundamental components, Information, Technology, People, and Organization and Society. However when the authors discuss other models for the information field most of them only have 3 fundamental components and either drop people or organization and society or they combine the two into one component. Do you agree that people and organization and society should be separate components or should they be combined?
ReplyDelete2. In this article the authors discuss how the information field is a dynamic field. They state that the field is always changing and generally what happens is that there will be a change in one of the components of the I-Model and that this change will cause the whole model to shift causing changes in all of the different components. Do you think that there is one specific component of the I-Model that is more dynamic, meaning that it changes more often, than the other components or are they all equally dynamic?
3. This article states that the I-Model that the authors propose can be applied to many different aspects of the information field. They state that it is particularly useful when applied to past research, current research, and proposed future research. Which of these three areas do you think that the I-Model would describe better?
1. Looking at the I-model representation of the Library and Information Science profession, I’m not sure that I agree with the representation. In the article the authors state that within LIS information system design is an important sub area but I don’t get that from the depiction. I think this could lead to a further stereotyping and assumption of the profession and not a representation of the expansions of these professions into new and less traditionally emphasized fields.
ReplyDelete2. The I-model is expected to provide directions for research between the different information professions described by the authors. The model is extremely broad and seems to encompass more than would be necessary to accomplish this goal, but if it is to be an accurate representation it would need to be broad. I’m not sure that broad representation helps the model to explore new research areas within information fields, but I do think it provides an interesting view of the current and past research interest in fields that could be beneficial in understanding its relation to the larger information profession.
3. I wonder how others feel the framework meets the principles of the iSchool curricula proposed by Seadle and Greifeneder. Would it be a useful tool in evaluating and constructing a program for an iSchool as the authors propose it would?
Re: 3. Except for the emphasis of HCI at the center of the curriculum model proposed by Seadle and Greifeneder, the framework proposed by Zhang and Benjamin seems complimentary to the curriculum of Seadle and Greifeneder. The anthropology perspective provides an approach to managing the broad scope of the field, and specialization is not discouraged since one of the authors was "embedded" into a computer science community.
Delete1. I don't necessarily disagree with the authors' four-pronged approach to I-model. With that, I think that this approach actually makes discussing the field of information studies easier to talk about and contextualize within a broader framework. I wonder if there's been any discussion about this approach by our iSchool administration, and their attitude towards it?
ReplyDelete2. The authors state that "bringing an intentional focus on unintended consequences related to technology is a grave challenge for the information related fields" (p. 1939). I'd be interested to know what this could and/or has looked like for information schools and within the information studies field. Is this a common trend? What are the consequences of focusing on unintended consequences?
3. A lot of the readings we have done this semester that focus on the field of information have described it as a relatively new and emerging field. At what point will this description no longer be applicable? And given that temporal scale, where are we now? Or perhaps, given the evolutionary, dynamic and responsive nature of the field--will this description forever be fitting?
3. I find it strange, too, that IS is always considered an "emerging" discipline. Libraries, at least, have been around for quite some time and wouldn't be described as "emerging." While I understand that IS comprises a lot more than just libraries, it seems the foundations for this discipline were laid long ago. Perhaps Rachel is right--the constantly evolving nature of information and the forms it takes may mean that IS will remain fluid, constantly changing, and always to be established as new.
Delete1. When discussing the interaction and integration of the fundamental components, the author raises a good example to assert integration's contribution to leading researching interests, as "strong integration between information and technology can lead to research interests in information architecture, digital reference service, to name a few." However, does it make sence only when information is one of the components for integration, as we might be led away from information science if we focus on interactions without information?
ReplyDelete2. What is the definition of "people" in this article? Do the authors mean all the individuals who are involved in information activities? And what is its difference with organization and society?
3. On page 1940, the author suggests that we use these four fundamental components to reexamine historical cases or examine current cases. Do these four components always exist as a group, and can be found or defined easily and clearly in any information situation?
1. Doesn't the Memex example in Wang's article (p.4) also imply a "social purpose" to the goal of artificial intelligence? If the "key" that relates the "I-field" to other fields while showing its uniqueness is the study the "concept and phenomena of Information that has a social purpose", shouldn't we say that this field focuses on the social purposes of information so as to acknowledge implicit goals of social purpose in other fields like Computer Science?
ReplyDelete2. I found the I-Model to be a useful tool for framing relationships between and within different fields. For example the Technology component is a strong part of modern day "information visualization" (p.1937) which also has moderate ties to the Information and People components.
1. In developing their “I-Model” the authors refer us to the intriguing concept of Weaver’s “tri-partite analysis of information”. From it they take away the idea that “information has meanings, purposes, and abilities to transform.” I am interested in the last bit, about transformation. What is doing the transforming? What is being transformed? How does the transformation process work? In the next sentence, the authors go on to say, “In other words, we are concerned with information that has social purposes.” Does this mean they are talking about transformation in an educational sense?
ReplyDelete2. Both this article and the Seadle/Greifneder article provide us with diagrams that demonstrate a conceptual organization of Information Science. Is one better than the other? More useful in certain contexts? What would a diagram of UT’s iSchool framework look like and how would it compare to the ones in our readings?
3. The authors claim that, “It is useful to consider the connection and difference between subject domain and application domain.” Is that true? How does understanding these terms improve my work in the information field? I mean, I’m inclined to believe the authors, I’d just like the usefulness to be laid out for me more fully.
1. I much prefer Ping and Benjamin's I-model to the figure proposed by Seadle and Greifender with HCI at its center. I feel that Ping and Benjamin's model depicts appropriately the balancing act of tools and concerns dealt with in the information community.
ReplyDelete2. The authors, in their discussion of societal implications of information studies, mention nth order effects of technologies like the automobile and go on to say that "[the] ever-increasing power of technology, especially information technology, rapidly increases the risk of these unintended consequences with serious potential consequences for society" (1939). While the authors assert that bringing an intentional focus on unintended consequences is a grave challenge for the information field, this is the first time it's been brought up to me or has even crossed my mind. And while it's great in theory, do we really know or assume that all of the potential consequences of an information technology are considered before its implementation?
1. I like the conceptual framework they came up with to illustrate the ischool curriculum, but as far as I understand, the model has already covered all the general subjects. So my question is as potential ischool curriculum, which components or relationships should we highlight?
ReplyDelete2. When talking about the four-component information model, the author mentioned that each of these four components has been a focal interest in other fields for a long time, followed by some examples to show the focal roles of these components. So if we are involved in the information-related field, where does our advantages lie on, compared with the people in other non-interdisciplinary fields?
3. In the Interaction and Integration of the Fundamental Components sections, the authors talked about the information related fields are about the various ways of interactions among the fundamental components. Follow up with the question #1, this kind of interaction/integration can be applied to any fields, what the outstanding parts for information related field?