Information systems

Information systems – Informing systems Birger Hjørland 5th CONTECSI 2008, São Paulo, June 59.00-10.30

Overview of presentation • Introduction: The importance of theory • The concept of information • Information systems • Epistemology (theory of knowledge) • Back to information systems • Back to epistemology • Levels of theory • Cognition as theory • Language as multiple voices based on interests • Conclusion

Introduction: The importance of theory • ”Nothing is as useful as a good theory”(Quote attributed to the psychologist Kurt Lewin) • “It cannot be overemphasized that change in concepts have far more impact than new discoveries” (Mayr, 1997, 98).

Introduction : The importance of theory • Information Technology have made great progress and the study of information, information technology and information systems have developed important techniques and methods. • Overall, however, conceptual and theoretical issues seems to have been neglected. • In this presentation, I shall present my own theoretical views about some core issues and how I see their importance for our field.

The concept of information • Information as a verb means to inform somebody about something. In my understanding should information as a noun correspond to information as verb. • By implication is information as a noun that, which informs somebody about something. • Information is thus anything that, for example, provides answers to a question. • Nothing is not information in itself, only in relation to what questions are put.

The concept of information • Karpatschof (2000) defines information as a quality of a given signal relative to a certain release mechanism. The release mechanism is sensitive to a specific signal as lock to a key. • The release mechanism has a store of energy and is ”designed” to let this energy out in specific ways whenever trigged by a signal fulfilling the specifications of the release mechanism.

The concept of information • The signal has a low energy compared with the energy that the release mechanism let out. • The release mechanism is also an information processing unit. It has a double function (1) it reinforces the weak signal and (2) it directs the reaction by defining the functional value of a signal in the pre-designed system of the release mechanism (information processing unit).

The concept of information • It is always possible to built a mechanism, that is sensitive to any given signal (or to any given difference). Because of this anythingmight be information. • Information is thus not some specified elements or parts of the world. Anything can be information. • It is not possible to say what is information, unless in relation to a specified “release mechanism”.

The concept of information • This is in agreement with Buckland (1991, p. 50): Anything might in some imaginable circumstances be informative ”We conclude that we are unable to say confidently of anything that it could not be information”. • Information is thus defined in physical terms as signals fulfilling certain requirements. • However, the mechanisms, relative to whom information is defined, evolved first in living organisms in which information processing mechanisms developed phylogenetically.

The concept of information • With the development of human cultures information processing mechanisms began a new kind of development (antropogenetic) based on new principles. • It follows that information is subjective or relative: What is information for one person in one situation needs not be information for another person or for the same person in another situation.

Information systems One definition of information system is: An organized collection, storage, and presentation system of data and other knowledge for decision making, progress reporting, and for planning and evaluation of programs. It can be either manual or computerized, or a combination of both.www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/glossary/glossary_i.htm

Information systems Contents of Information Systems: Facts ? or Theory ? (Knowledge claims?) I believe the last option has been much neglected and deserves attention. (May be termed: Anti-Foundational Knowledge Management, cf. Tom Butler, 2006).

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) The principle of fallibilism states that knowledge should be considered provisional and open to later revision. I do believe that facts exist, for example, that Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, that Napoleon died 1821 or that gold is one of the chemical elements. However, sometimes what was considered a fact turned out to be wrong. Logical positivism was an attempt to base science on verified facts, but this attempt is generally considered a failure.

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) Although facts do exist, my suggestion is that we should consider the content of information system “knowledge claims”. The late Professor Spang-Hanssen wrote: "Information about some physical property of a material is actually incomplete without information about the precision of the data and about the conditions under which these data were obtained. Moreover, various investigations of a property have often led to different results that cannot be compared and evaluated apart from information about their background. . . .

Epistemology (theory of knowledge) . . . An empirical fact has always a history and a perhaps not too certain future. This history and future can be known only through information from particular documents, i.e. by document retrieval. The so-called fact retrieval centers seem to be just information centers that keep their information sources – i.e. their documents – exclusively to themselves" (Spang-Hansen, 2001).

Information systems My suggestion is that we should consider the content of information systems as knowledge claims, related to the background assumptions and theories of the producers of that content. How can information professionals compete with (or providing supplementary services compared to) systems such as Google?

Information systems One answer was suggested by Stephen Abram. “Libraries core skill is not delivering information. Libraries improve the quality of the question and the user experience“ (slide 13) and on slide 17: “Google is most efficient in answering what, when and where questions. Libraries are better at answering why and how questions”(compare also slide 103-104 and 143). (Abram, 2007).

Information systems How is it possible to improve the quality of users’ questions? I have a suggestion. Perhaps you do not find it attractive? In that case it is important to consider what the alternatives are. (Can any be found? Not much is presented in the literature). If we do not have visions that can be transformed to specific research, education and development programs, then we cannot expect to survive as a field.

Information systems I therefore suggest we examine Abram’s suggestion carefully and examine how we may improve the quality of users’ questions. Let us consider an example. A user asks about anxiety. Anxiety is a concept connected to different disciplines and to very different theories / conceptual structures, for example: • Brain physiology and chemistry • Existentialism • Psychoanalysis • Behavior and learning • Culture

Information systems There are simply many different theoretical perspectives on how to consider a given question such as one about anxiety. If the user, who puts the question is not aware of these different perspectives, he or she is not in a position to formulate a query or to evaluate the research because any given query may provide only one (or some) answers from different perspectives. It is exactly as Abram said: It is important to qualify the question. In order to do so is it necessary to know something about the existing knowledge related to that question.

Information systems The first thing is therefore to provide an overview of important theoretical perspectives enabling the user to search consciously for one or more of these perspectives. If this is not done then there is a strong probability that the user will only be presented with the dominating perspective (dominating in the information sources). The dominating perspective is, perhaps, the “best” perspective, but it just as well be just a view reflecting a dominating interest in society.

Information systems In the case with anxiety: Today (in the Western World) may the interests of the pharmacological industry influence the view that anxiety is best understood in chemical terms. Such a view tend to reduce psychological and social issues. It may not always be in the best interest of people with emotional problems. Consider another example. In the dominant Western databases (such as Social Sciences Citation Index) are only journals from rich countries represented. Are they simply the best? Or are voices from developing countries being suppressed?

Information systems In questioning accepted facts there is, of course, a danger in paying too much attention to controversial theories or theories of problematic quality. Thus we face a dilemma: On one hand we may suppress points of view which may turn out to be important (in general or for somebody) On the other hand we may pay too much attention to low quality information.

Information systems Different kinds of information systems need to be closer to one or the other of these alternatives. Systems based on “artificial intelligence” have to consider knowledge as facts. (E.g. GPS systems or systems comparing prices for fly tickets etc). Systems such as bibliographical databases, on the other hand, have to consider conflicting views.

Information systems In general have knowledge been considered “established facts” due to influences of logical positivism. The validity of knowledge has been overestimated. There is a general need to consider knowledge claims as just that: Knowledge claims and to consider knowledge claims in the context of their theoretical presumptions. This will enable information systems to qualify users’ questions and to provide different perspectives on a given question. (As already said: Different kinds of information systems have to pay more or less attention to this issue).

Information systems Partial conclusion: Information systems are systems intended to inform somebody about something. Information systems are teleological systems (goal directed) in which the intention and goals behind the systems determine what to consider information, how informative objects should be selected, labeled, described, organized and retrieved.

Information systems Partial conclusion (continued): What is considered valid and fruitful knowledge is often controversial, why information systems need to provide alternative views or at least be explicit concerning the choice of view. There must always be a balance between naïvity and skepticism in relation to the knowledge claims, on which the system is based.

Back to epistemology Any information scientist need to consider the debate about logical positivism, Popper, Kuhn, hermeneutics, the theory-ladenness of observations etc. He or she also needs to develop an opinion which informs his or her research. If different theories exist, it makes an important difference which one is chosen. In my opinion is this field very neglected and most research on information systems are based on problematic philosophical assumptions.

Back to epistemology There exist many theories of knowledge (epistemologies). Introductions to many are provided in The Epistemological Lifeboat under the heading “Positions” However, many of them may be regarded as related, as belonging to the same “family”. In my understanding, there are four basic epistemological views: Empiricism, Rationalism, Historicism and Pragmatism.

Simplified relevance criteria in four epistemological schools Empiricism Rationalism Historicism Pragmatism Relevant: Observations, sense-data. Induction from collections of observational data. Intersubjectively controlled data. Non-relevant: Speculations, knowledge transmitted from authorities. "Book knowledge" ("reading nature, not books"). Data about the observers' assumptions and pre-understanding. Relevant: Pure thinking, logic, mathematical models, computer modeling, systems of axioms, definitions and theorems. Low priority is given to empirical data because such data must be organized in accordance with principles which cannot come from experience. Relevant: Background knowledge about pre-understanding, theories, conceptions, contexts , historical developments and evolutionary perspectives. Low priority is given to decontextualized data of which the meanings cannot be interpreted. Intersubjectively controlled data are often seen as trivia. Relevant: Information about goals and values and consequences both involving the researcher and the object of research (subject and object). Low priority (or outright suspicion) is given to claimed value free or neutral information. For example, feminist epistemology is suspicious about the neutrality of information produced in a male dominated society.

Back to epistemology Each of these views compete – more or less – in every domain of knowledge. They represent theories of what kinds of knowledge should be preferred. Interestingly, nobody seems to have noticed this connection between theories of knowledge and theories of information.

Back to epistemology Empiricism and rationalism were the “classical” theories of knowledge, and even today one often encounter people, who only consider these two views. Empiricism and rationalism are, however, problematic theories. They have very serious arguments against each other. Most people today agree that science is based on empirical study, but this is not the meaning of the term “empiricism”, which has been expressed as the myth of the “given” in human perception.

Back to epistemology Different epistemologies must thus be understood as different ideals on how to do (empirical) studies. I believe that versions of “pragmatism” is the best theory with capability to subsume sense experiences and logical thinking under a broader view.

Back to epistemology In spite of the view that empiricism and rationalism are problematic theories it is important to realize that they are active in almost all fields of knowledge. They are both seeing knowledge as neutral and objective – and thus disconnected to human interests and activities. In information science, for example, the belief that a “similarity measure” in an objective and neutral way can provide means for retrieving information is in my opinion based on empiricism”. From a pragmatic point of view it would be argued that there are many different similarity measures and that the choice between them have to consider the consequences of choosing one measure for another.

Back to epistemology The pragmatic view is related to an evolutionary view. Knowledge is produced in iterative processes involving observations, rational analysis, theories, former experiences and pragmatic factors. All these elements interacts: Observations may be rejected by theory or theory by observations. There is no absolute basis for knowledge (Anti-Foundational view). Living organisms have adapted to their environments, and their sense organs and brains are parts of this adaptation, why sense impressions or intuitions cannot be seen in isolation from the overall pattern of activity. The same with science, just that the development of concepts, symbolic systems, tools etc. are also important.

Theory again and again: Four levels • We started by considering the importance of theory for information systems and information science (Information science theory). • Next we considered the theoretical nature of the knowledge/information in the information systems (epistemology). • Next we shall consider the theoretical nature of users (cognition). • Finally we consider the theoretical nature of languages (and other symbolic systems)

Cognition How do people, for example, children think? Behaviorism believed that they learn like a neural network learn. Cognitivism believed that they learn like a programmed computer in which the basic programs are innate. I believe that Theory theory and Activity theory provide better models of human thinking. "A person does whathe does because he sees the world as he sees it”(Alfred Korzybskii).

Cognition Theory theory “The basic idea is that children develop their everyday knowledge of the world by using the same cognitive devices that adults use in science. In particular, children develop abstract, coherent, systems of entities and rules, particularly causal entities and rules. That is, they develop theories. These theories enable children to make predictions about new evidence, to interpret evidence, and to explain evidence. . . .

Cognition Theory theory . . . Children actively experiment with and explore the world, testing the predictions of the theory and gathering relevant evidence. Some counter-evidence to the theory is simply reinterpreted in terms of the theory. Eventually, however, when many predictions of the theory are falsified, the child begins to seek alternative theories. If the alternative does a better job of predicting and explaining the evidence it replaces the existing theory.” (Gopnik 2003)

Cognition “Activity theory is aimed at understanding the mental capabilities of a single human being. However, it rejects the isolated human being as an adequate unit of analysis, focusing instead on cultural and technical mediation of human activity. Activity theory is most often used to describe activity in a socio-technical system as a set of six interdependent elements which constitute a general conceptual system that can be used as a foundation for more specific theories: . . .

Cognition • Object-orientedness - the objective of the activity system as a whole. Human beings live in a reality which is objective in a broad sense; the things which constitute this reality have not only the properties which are considered objective according to natural sciences but socially/culturally defined properties as well. • Subject or internalization - a person or group engaged in the activities; the traditional notion of mental processes • Community or externalization - social context; all people involved

Cognition • Tools or tool mediation - the artifacts (or concepts) used by subjects to accomplish tasks. Tools shape the way human beings interact with reality and reflect the experiences of other people who have tried to solve similar problems at an earlier time and invented/modified the tool to make it more efficient. This experience is accumulated in the structural properties of tools (shape, material, etc.) as well as in the knowledge of how the tool should be used. Tools are created and transformed during the development of the activity itself and carry with them a particular culture - the historical remnants from that development. The use of tools is a means for the accumulation and transmission of social knowledge. It influences the nature, not only of external behavior, but also of the mental functioning of individuals.

Cognition • Division of labor - social strata, hierarchical structure of activity, the balance of activities among different people and artifacts in the system • Rules - conventions, the code and guidelines for activities and behaviors in the system Activity theory helps explain how social artifacts and social organization mediate social action. (Bryant et al.)

Cognition Activity theory understands knowledge as a product of the known thing (the object) and a human activity that has an adequate form in relation to that object. Knowledge = Activity x Object Knowledge is mediated by human activity (and its goals) and cultural products such as languages. This view of cognition is thus based on a pragmatic theory of knowledge. The subject has developed in relation to its interaction with objects. Or subjects and objects have developed together (structural coupling).

Cognition The implication is that “information”, “information system” and “user” are not independent. Information systems should be made “user friendly”, but this may be done in an organic way, not just by adjust to some universal characteristics of users.

Language I do not know one theory of language, which I feel may do the whole job for us. I believe it is important to consider to social nature of language and I believe that a family of related theories of language is helpful, e.g.: • Volosinov (1929/1986) • Tapir/Whorf (language determine how we perceive the world) • Wittgenstein (theory of language games) • Speech act theory • Sociocognitive terminology

Language Volosinov: Any language as it is lived, socially, over a variety of social, professional, class and so forth positions, is really an interacting and at times contesting amalgam of different language uses. Hence every language instance is marked by centrifugal (heteroglossic, socially distinguishing) as well as centripetal (monoglossic, societally unifying) forces. Each of these 'languages' embodies a distinct view of the world, its own sense of meanings, relations, intentions

Language I understand Volosinov as follows: Each “theory”, each “voice” tend to develop its own language in order to facilitate its underlying intentions as effective as possible. Any sample of texts will always represent a merging of different voices, in which the stronger voices has made the highest impact. A pure voice may only exist as an abstraction.

Language (Volosinov): In order to “retrieve information” should we try to identify the different voices because the merged information is an unclear mixture that cannot provide optimal retrieval. The user should know about the different voices and select the one that suit his or her interest.

Language “The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers to the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality.” (Lucy, 2001, p. 13486). (Compatible with Thomas Kuhn’s view of scientists’ dependency of “paradigms” in their perception of reality).

Information systems – Informing systems