نوع مقاله: مقاله مروری

نویسنده

دانشجوی دکتری علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

هدف : مقاله حاضر به تحلیل و نقد جایگاه و کاربرد رویکردهای شناختی در علوم اطلاعات می‌پردازد. همچنین افق‌های جدیدی برای انجام پژوهش شناختی در علوم اطلاعات معرفی می‌کند.
روش: این پژوهش توصیفی و از نوع مروری- تحلیلی است. از منابع علمی برای بررسی و تحلیل موضوع استفاده شده است.
یافته‌ها: رویکرد شناختی بر جریان تحقیقات و حل مسائل علوم اطلاعات موثر بوده است. حوزه بازیابی اطلاعات نسبت به سایر حوزه‌ها به نحو گسترده‌ از رویکرد شناختی تاثیر پذیرفته است. علیرغم مزایا و نتایج موثری که رویکرد شناختی کلاسیک در پژوهش‌های اطلاعات داشت، ولی با انتقاداتی روبرو شد. این انتقادات به ظهور رویکرد شناختی- اجتماعی در علوم اطلاعات منجر شد. در این رویکرد بافت و شرایط اجتماعی کاربر در تعامل با سیستم اطلاعاتی اهمیت یافت.
نتیجه‌گیری: علوم اطلاعات نیازمند چهارچوب های نظری یکپارچه است که بتواند عناصر رویکرد اجتماعی و نیز شناختی را باهم در جهت حل مسائل تحقیق خود بکار گیرد. رویکرد شناختی می تواند برای مطالعه مفاهیم و فرایندهای متعددی که در توزیع اطلاعات، پخش و انتقال آن حیاتی هستند، مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. همچنین مهم است که استفاده از علوم شناختی به حوزه‌های دیگر علوم اطلاعات گسترش یابد و دامنه مطالعات چند بعدی توسعه یابد.
کلیدواژه ها: علوم شناختی، علوم اطلاعات، بازیابی اطلاعات، رویکرد شناختی- اجتماعی، بافت، بازیابی اطلاعات، جستجوی اطلاعات، سازماندهی دانش.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis and criticism of the status and application of cognitive approaches In information sciences

چکیده [English]

Purpose: This article analyzes and critiques the position and application of cognitive approaches in information science. It also introduces new horizons of cognitive research in information science.
Method: this research is descriptive and based on review-analytical type. For review and analyses of topic have been used scientific resources.
Findings: cognitive approach has been effective on research flow and resolve problems of information science. Compared with others areas, Information retrieval widely has influenced by cognitive approach. Despite advantages and effective results of classical cognitive approach have in information research, but were met with criticisms. These criticisms resulted in emergence of social-cognitive approach in information science. In this approach, context and social conditions of user is important in interaction with information system.
Conclusion: information science needs integrated theoretical frameworks in order to be able used together social and also cognitive approach elements to resolve their research problems. Cognitive approach can be used for study of concepts and multiple processes that are crucial in information dissemination, distribution and transmission. It is also important that the use of cognitive approach spread to others areas of information science and expand the scope of multidimensional studies.
Keywords: cognitive science, information science, social-cognitive approach, context, information retrieval, information seeking, knowledge organization.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "cognitive science"
  • "information science"
  • "social-cognitive approach"
  • "information retrieval"

1. ابراهیم‌زاده، ص؛ رضایی شریف آبادی، س (1395). آموزه های نظریه اجتماعی-شناختی در بازیابی اطلاعات.تعاملانسانواطلاعات،3(2)، 29-42.

2. امیریان، م (1393). رویکردهای مدل‌‌سازی ذهن در علوم شناختی و چالش‌‌های فلسفی پیش‌‌روی آن. پژوهش‌‌های علوم انسانی نقش جهان، 1(2)، 35-54.

3. پژوهشکده علوم شناختی (1393). معرفی علوم شناختی؛ بوروشور آموزشی. قابل دسترس در:  http://www.iricss.org/fa/Pages/CS-Definition.aspx(2015/30/8)

4. خندان، م؛ فدایی عراقی، غ (1387). نگاهی به پارادایم‌‌های سه گانه‌‌ی مدرن در اطلاع‌‌شناسی. فصلنامه پیام کتابخانه،54(1):3-30.

5. مکی‌‌زاده، ف؛ بیگدلی، ز (1393). نظریه شناخت اجتماعی: رویکردی مؤثّر در رفتارهای اطلاعاتی .پژوهشنامهکتابداریواطلاع‌‌رسانی،4(2)،131-147.

6. یورلند، ب(1381). «فرانظریه و علم اطلاع‌رسانی». ترجمه مهدی داودی. در مبانی، تاریخچه و فلسفه علم اطلاع‌رسانی. به کوشش علیرضا بهمن‌آبادی. تهران: کتابخانه ملی ایران، ص 425-448.

7. Afzal, W &Thompson, A. (2011).Contributions of cognitive science to information science: An analytical synopsis. Emporia State Research Studies, 47(1):18-23.

8. Afzal, W., Roland, D., & Al-Suqri, M. (2009). Information asymmetry and product valuation: An exploratory study. Journal of Information Science, 35(2):192-203.

9. Aiyepeku, W.O. (1982). Information utilization by policymakers in Nigeria, Part IV: Critical factors in the utilization of information. Journal of Information Science, 5(2):87- 92.

10. Allen, B. (1991).Cognitive research in information science: implications for design. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 26(1-2):3-37.

11. Belkin, N. J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science, 16(1):11-15.

12. Belkin, N.J. (1984). Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, (4):111–129.

13. Belkin, N.J. (1990).The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science, 16 (1):11-15.

14. Belkin, N.J. (2005). Anomalous State of Knowledge. In: Fisher KE, Erdelez S and McKechnie EF (eds.) Theories of information behavior: A researchers’ guide. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 44–48.

15. Borlund, P.(2003).The Concept of Relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10):913–925.

16. Brookes, B.C. (1980).The foundations of information science: part I: philosophical aspects, Journal of Information Science, 2(3- 4):125-133.

17. Bruce, Harry. (2002). A focus on usings. In: The user's view of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, pp. 31 67. In Hjørland, Birger. (2016).Theoretical development of information science: A brief history.  Available at: http://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2Fpublications%2Ftheoretical-development-of-information-science-a-brief-history (b94a5382-3c13-455f-8417-8a2b024af4b9).html

18. Budd, J. M. (2011).Revisiting the Importance of Cognition in Information Science. Journal of Information Science, 37(4):360–368.

19. Cool, C. (2001).The concept of situation in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, (35): 5-42.

20. Cronin, Blaise. (2009).Introduction. In Annual review of information science and technology, 43(1):1-6.

21. Cronin, Blaise. (2008).The sociological turn in information science. Journal of Information Science, 34(4):465–475.

22. Da Silva, Armando Malheiro, Ribeiro, Fernanda & Martins, Fernanda. (2010).Information Science and Cognitive Psychology: A Theoretical Approach. Chapter.Technological Convergence and Social Networks in Information Management, (96):189-199.

23. Dahlin, K.B.Weingart, L.R., & Hinds, P.J. (2005).Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6):1107-1123.

24. Daniels, P.J. (1986).Cognitive models in information retrieval: An evaluative review. Journal of Documentation, 42(4):272-304.

25. De May, Marc. (1977). the cognitive view point: its development and its scope. Communication & Cognition, 10(2):7-23.

26. Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, (21):3-33.

27. Ellis, D. (1989). A behavioral approach to information retrieval system design. Journal of Documentation, 45(3):171- 212.

28. Ellis, D. (1992).The physical and cognitive paradigms in information retrieval research. Journal of Documentation, 48(1):45-64.

29. Greisdorf, H., & Connor, O. B. (2002). Modeling what users see when they look at images: A cognitive viewpoint. Journal of Documentation, 58(1):6-29.

30. Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9):602-615.

31. Hewins, E. T.(1990). Information need and use studies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, (25):145- 172.

32. Hjørland B. (2013).User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization: A theoretical analysis of the research literature. Knowledge Organization, (40):11–27.

33. Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995).Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6):400- 425.

34. Hjørland, B. (2016).Theoretical development of information science: A brief history.  Available at:

 http://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2Fpublications%2Ftheoretical-development-of-information-science-a-brief-history (b94a5382-3c13-455f-8417-8a2b024af4b9).html

35. Hjørland, B. (2002).Epistemology and the Socio-Cognitive Perspective in Information Science", Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 53 (4): 257-270.

36. Holland, G. (2008).Information science: an interdisciplinary effort? Journal of Documentation, 64(1):7-23.

37. Holm, P., & Karlgren, K. (1996).Cognitive Science on Trial. Proceedings of the 19th Information systems Research seminar In Scandinavia (IRIS), Lökeberg, Sweden.available at: file:///C:/Users/akbar%20bala/Downloads/Cognitive_Science_on_Trial.pdf.

38. Ingwersen, P.  & Järvelin, K. (2005).The turn. Integration of information seeking and retrieval in context. Berlin: Springer.In Hjørland B. (2013).User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization: A theoretical analysis of the research literature. Knowledge Organization, (40):11–27.

39. Ingwersen, P. (1982).Search procedures in the library analyzed from the cognitive point of view. Journal of Documentation, 38(3):165-191.

40. Ingwersen, P. (1992).Information Retrieval Interaction, Taylor Graham, London, available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e532/c3f70a250adf1c38315e8261826b8b177015.pdf

41. Ingwersen, P. (1996).Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1): 350.

42. Ingwersen, P. (1999).Cognitive information retrieval. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, (34):3-52.

43. Kuhlthau, C.C. (1991).Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5):361- 371.

44. Lakoff, G. &.  Johnson, Mark (1999).Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its chalenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

45. Markless, S. (2009). A new conception of information literacy for the digital learning environment in higher education. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 1(1), 25-40.

46. Newby,G.(2001).Cognitive space and information space, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12): 1026-48.

47. Nielsen, L. (2002).The word association method: a gateway to work-task based retrieval. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Thesis.

48. Oddy, R.N. (1977). Information retrieval through man-machine dialogue. Journal of Documentation, 33(1):1-14.

49. Reigeluth, C.M. (2008).Chaos theory and the sciences of complexity: Foundations for transforming education. In B. Despres (Ed.), System thinkers in action: A field guide for effective change leadership in education. NY: Rowman & Littlefield.available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b26b/db3c9564a3c542225401e42d9db83a2cd743.pdf

50. Rich, E.A.(1979).User modeling via stereotypes. Cognitive Science, 3(4):329-354.

51. Rogers, Y. (2004).New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction.Annual Review of Information, Science and Technology, (38)87-143.

52. Ronald, Day, and Lau.J.Andrew. (2010).Psychoanalysis as Critique in the Works of Freud, Lacan, and Deleuze and Guattar. In Critical Theory for Library and Information Science: Exploring the Social from across the Disciplines.Gloria J.Leckie, Lisa M.Given, and John E.Buschman.2010.Library Unlimited.

53. Saracevic, T. (1975).Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(6):321-312.

54. Saracevic, T. (2007).Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science part II: nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13):1915-1933.

55. Saracevic,Tefko.(1992).Information science: origin, evolution, relations. In Vakkari, Pertti and Cronin, Blaise, eds., Conceptions of library and information science: historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham, pp. 5–27.available at: http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~kantor/601/Readings2004/Week2/w2R1.PDF.

56. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M.B., &Nilan, M.S. (1990).A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, (26):755–775.

57. Sonnenwald, D.H. (1999).Evolving Perspectives of Human Information Behavior: Contexts, Situations, Social Networks and Information Horizons.In: Exploring the Contexts of Information Behavior: Proceedings of the Second International Conference in Information Needs. Taylor Graham, pp. 176-190. [Book chapter].Available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/7971/1/isic98%2Bpaper.pdf

58. Srinivasan, N. (2011). Cognitive science: Emerging perspectives and approaches.available at: http://www.imsc.res.in/~sitabhra/meetings/school10/Narayanan_Srinivasan_Cognitive_Science_trends_and_approaches.pdf

59. Talja, S. (1997).Constituting "information" and "user" as research objects. A theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man -theory. In: Hjørland, Birger. (2016).Theoretical development of information science: A brief history.  Available at: http://research.ku.dk/search/?pure=en%2Fpublications%2Ftheoretical-development-of-information-science-a-brief-history (b94a5382-3c13-455f-8417-8a2b024af4b9).html

60. Talja, S.Tuominen, K.and Savolainen, R. (2005)."Isms" in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1):79–101.

61. Vickery, B.C. (1997).Metatheory and information science. Journal of Documentation, 53(5): 457-476.

62. Wersig, G. (1979). The problematic situation as a basic concept of information science in the framework of social sciences: A reply to N. Belkin. In: Theoretical Problems of Informatics: New Trends in Informatics and Its Terminology: Collection of Papers. Moscow: International Federation for Documentation, 1979. In Afzal&Thompson. (2011).Contributions of cognitive science to information science: An analytical synopsis. Emporia State Research Studies, 47(1):18-23.

63. White, Howard. D. and McCain, Katherine W. (1998).Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (49):327–55.

64. Yoon, K., & Nilan, M.S.(1999).Toward a econceptualization of information research: Focus on the exchange of meaning. Information Processing & Management, 35(6):871-890.

CAPTCHA Image