The status of interdiscipline in library classification schedules

Document Type : Research َ Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, University of Isfahan

2 PhD Candidate, Knowledge and Information Science, University of Isfahan

10.30484/nastinfo.2018.2258

Abstract

Purpose: materialized of this topic.
Methodology: The adopted research method in this study is analytic. Consequently, the 1) related literature on “discipline” and “Interdisciplinarity” and the interdisciplinary issue in the library classification systems and 2) “Interdisciplinarity” in 53 library classification systems are analyzed here. Given the nature of this subject, purposive sampling and census are applied.
Findings: The findings indicate that library classifications are developed based on academic disciplines and so the important status of Interdisciplinarity is ignored. The prevailing approach in developing the library classification systems consist of the classic logic.
Conclusion: Because of ignorance in interdisciplinarity in the library classification systems, following a compound approach in library classifications like phenomenon-based and domain analysis classifications is necessary. Also, the transition from classical library classifications to the ones with fuzzy logic approach would be applicable.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

بحرانی، مرتضی (1392). رشته، میان‌رشته و تقسیم‌بندی علوم. مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 5 (2)، 37-59.
برزگر، ابراهیم (1387). تاریخچه، چیستی و فلسفه پیدایی علوم میان‌رشته‌ای. مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 1 (1)، ص 37-56.
چان، لوئیس‌می (1385). فهرست‌نویسی و رده‌بندی (ویرایش2) (زهیر حیاتی و هاجر ستوده، مترجمان). تهران: کتابدار.
شریف‌زاده، محمدجواد (1389). تحلیل رویکرد اسلام در تخصیص منابع: با تأکید بر تعامل بازار و نهادهای حقوقی. پایان‌نامه دکتری. دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
علوی‌پور، محسن (1387). مبانی نظری و روش‌شناسی مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
فدائی، غلامرضا (1389). کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی؛ رشته یا میان‌رشته؟ مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 2 (2)، 18-1.
فدائی عراقی، غلامرضا (1384) طرحی نو برای رده‌بندی کتابخانه‌ها و مراکز اطلاع‌رسانی. علوم و فناوری اطلاعات، 21 (2)، 105-132.
نقیب‌زاده، میرعبدالحسین (1386). نگاهی به فلسفه آموزش ‌و پرورش. تهران: طهوری.
یعقوب‌نژاد، محمدهادی (1390). طبقه‌بندی علوم و چالش‌های فرارو. نقد و نظر، 16 (4)، 135-152.
یعقوب‌نژاد، محمدهادی (1393). سازماندهی علوم انسانی اسلامی نیازی میان‌رشته‌ای. مطالعات میان‌رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 6 (2)، 111-137.
Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) (2013). Interdisciplinary Studies. Retrieved July 22, 2018, from http://www.oakland.edu/ais/
Bensman, S. J. (2001). Bradford's law and fuzzy sets: Statistical implications for library analyses. IFLA Journal, 27 (4), 238-246.
Bulick, S. (1982). Structure and subject interaction. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Davis C. H., & Shaw, D. (2011). Introduction to information science and technology. New Jersey: Information Today.
Gnoli, C. (2006). The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classification. In G. Budin, C. Swertz, & K. Mitgutsch, (Eds.), Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th ISKO conference, July 4-7, (pp. 11-18 ). Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Gnoli, C. (2010). Classification transcends library business. Knowledge Organization, 37 (3), 223–229.
Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58 (4), 422–462.
Hjørland, B., & Nissen Pedersen, K. (2005). A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 61 (5), 582–595.
Julien, C. A., Tirilly, P., Dinneen, J., & Guastavino, C. (2013). Reducing subject tree browsing complexity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 64 (11), 2201–2223.
Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1996). Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies. In J. Gaff & J. Ratcliff (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: Comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. (pp. 393-415). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kleineberg, M. (2013). The blind men and the elephant: Towards an organization of epistemic contexts. Knowledge Organization, 40 (5), 340-362.
Kyle, B. (1960). Classification: adopt, adapt, or create?: a discussion point. Aslib Proceedings, 12 (9), 317–320.
Mai, J. E. (2008). Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies. Knowledge Organization, 35 (1), 16–29.
National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation [U.S.] (2011). Rebuilding the Mosaic: Fostering Research in the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation in the Next Decade. Retrieved July 22, 2018, from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11086/nsf11086.pdf
Palmer, C. L. (1996). Information work at the boundaries of science: Linking library services to research practices. Library Trends, 45 (2), 165–191.
Palmer, C. L. (2001). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Palmer, C. L. (2010). Information research on interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, (pp. 174–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering: Inventing Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Searing, S. E. (1996). Meeting the information needs of interdisciplinary scholars: Issues for administrators of large university libraries. Library Trends, 45 (2), 315–342.
Smiraglia, R. P. (2012). Introduction: Theory, knowledge organization, epistemology, culture. In Smiraglia, R. P, & Lee, H. (Eds.), Cultural frames of knowledge, (pp.1-17). Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag.
Szostak, R. (2004). Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer.
Szostak, R. (2008). Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. Journal of Documentation, 64 (3), 319–332.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Librarianship and Information Organization Studies
Volume 29, Issue 2 - Serial Number 114
September 2018
Pages 27-50

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 October 2017
  • Revise Date: 05 April 2018
  • Accept Date: 07 April 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics