عنوان مقاله [English]
Purpose: The aim is to analyze two approaches of system-oriented and user-oriented in information retrieval systems and to appraise relevance from an epistemological basis and to present a composed approach based on Platonic dialectic.
Methodology: This is a theoretical study that critically analyzes the approaches of system-oriented and user-oriented in information retrieval systems and relevancy evaluation, and, given its strengths and weaknesses, has proposed a relatively comprehensive method based on Platonic dialectics.
Findings: Epistemologically, the system-oriented approach is rooted in the Parmenides' philosophy of stability and the user-oriented approach in Heraclitus' flux philosophy. The change in the information needs and the way of observing the world, and the change in the judgment process of relevance can be explained by the use of Heraclitus' flux theory; also, the change in the judgments of relevance to single document over different times can be explained by Parmenides' stability. To overcome the deficiencies of these two approaches in assessing the relevance of the retrieved documents, the use of Platonic dialectical method can be an alternative.
Conclusion: Platonic dialectical method is a deductive-inductive composed method in which all components of information retrieval are seen in all stages of the search as a whole whose components are in action and in interaction with each other; thus, one can provide an appropriate approach to assess "relevance" in Information retrieval systems.
Bookstein, A. (1979). Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30 (5), 269 – 273.
Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (10), 913-925.
Brookes, B. C. (1980). The foundations of information science. Part I. Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2 (3-4), 125-133.
Capurro, R. (2003). Foundations of information science: Review and perspectives. Retrieved 20 July, 2016, from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/ html/10150/105705/ethikskript/tampere91.htm
Chen, G. K. C. (1975). What is the systems approach? Interfaces, 6 (1), 32-37.
Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7 (1), 19-37.
Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36 (4), 533-550.
Derr, R. L. (1983). A conceptual analysis of information need. Information Processing & Management, 19 (5), 273-278.
Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. S. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annul Review of Information Science and Technology, 21 (3), 3-33.
Dick, A. L., & Weckert, J. (2003). Review: a philosophical framework for library and information science. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 73 (1), 73-77.
Encyclopedia Britanica. (2016). Mind–body dualism (philosophy). In Britanica Global Edition (30 Vol. set). New York: Encyclopeia Britanica.
Foskett, D. J. (1972). A note on the concept of “relevance”. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8 (2), 77-78.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed‐method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997 (74), 5-17.
Harter, S. P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (9), 602-615.
Hersh, W. (1994). Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (3), 201-206.
Hjørland, B. (2004). Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science. Library Trends, 52 (3), 488-506.
Hjørland, B. (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (2), 217-237.
Hjørland, B., & Christensen, F. S. (2002). Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance: a specific example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (11), 960-965.
Huang, X., & Soergel, D. (2013). Relevance: an improved framework for explicating the notion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 18-35.
Lavrenko, V. (2009). A Generative Theory of Relevance (Vol. 26). Berlin: Springer-verlag.
Mizzaro, S. (1998). How many relevances in information retrieval. Interacting with Computers, 10 (3), 303-320.
Naumer, C., & Fisher, K. E. (2009). Information needs. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark. Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (3rd ed). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Park, T. K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: an empirical study. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 63 (3), 318-351.
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), 321-343.
Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered. In P. Ingwersen & N. Ole Pors (Eds.). Proceedings of CoLIS 2: Second Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science: Integration in Perspective, October 14-17, (pp. 201-218). København: Royal School of Librarianship.
Saracevic, T. (2006). Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. In D. A. Nitecki, E. G. Abels (Eds.), Advances in Librarianship, 30, pp. 3-71.
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.
Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M. B., & Nilan, M. S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26 (6), 755-776.
Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2005). A multitasking framework for cognitive information retrieval. InNew directions in cognitive information retrieval (Chap. 6, pp. 99-112). Netherlands: Springer.
Swanson, D. R. (1986). Subjective versus objective relevance in bibliographic retrieval systems. The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 56 (4), 389-398.
Wilson, T. D. (2002). Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research methodology for information behavior research. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3 (71), 1-15.