Sociocognitive view in Library and Information Science (LIS)
The domain analytic
theory (DA) emphasis domains, as opposed to individuals, as units of analysis in
LIS. Nevertheless it contains also a view of users’ individual cognitive
processes. This view is termed the socio-cognitive view (cf., Hjørland, 2002) or
activity theory.
A basic assumption in the socio-cognitive view is that small
children’s cognition is mainly determined by biological principles. When
children learn language, symbols etc. the cognitive processes are increasingly
mediated by signs, meaning and symbols, which are internalized in the individual
and then re-program the way cognitive processes work. Such systems of signs and
symbols are first developed externally, in a culture. They are culture-specific
and partly social- and domain specific.
People’s use of information may be partly biologically determined.
Some people like music much more than others and therefore they use more
information about music. Some people have a flair for mathematics, others try to
avoid it. When we speak of people’s relevance criteria in relation to IR, they
are, however, mainly determined by cultural factors. They may, for example, be
determined by trends or ”paradigms” in knowledge domains, as demonstrated by
Hjørland (2002) in psychology. When searching for literature about a topic, say
schizophrenia, the relevance criteria are implied by the theory, tradition or
”paradigm” to which the searcher subscribes or belongs. Psychoanalysts prefer
psychoanalytical papers, cognitivists prefer cognitivistic papers etc. Relevance
criteria are socialized into the individual from the academic tradition in which
he has been raised (and to which he may himself add, modify or change relevance
criteria). It should be obvious that people seeking information about, for
example, music, are similarly socialized into specific cultures and preferences:
people tend to prefer music that other people in the same culture or subculture
prefer.
What is the difference between the socio-cognitive view and
traditional cognitive views? Gärdenfors
wrote:
“The role of culture and society in cognition was marginalized in
early cognitive science. These were regarded as problem areas to be addressed
when an understanding of individual cognition had been achieved. . . .
However, when the focus of cognitive theories shifted away from symbolic
representations, semantic and pragmatic research reappeared on the agenda . . .
. . . a second tradition turns the study programme up-side-down: actions are
seen as the most basic entities . . . (Gärdenfors, 1999).
The socio-cognitive view thus turns the traditional
cognitive program up-side-down. It emphasizes the internalization of culturally
produced signs and symbols and the way cognitive processes are mediated by
culturally, historically and socially constructed meanings. Less priority is
given to ”hardware” whether in brains or computers.
Domain analysis consequently does not conceive users in general, but sees them
as belonging to different cultures, to different social structures and to
different domains of knowledge. Information producers, intermediaries and users
are more or less connected in communities that share common languages, genres
and other typified communication practices. They share meanings to different
degrees: There are different semantic distances between the agents.
DA and the socio-cognitive view are based in a kind of
philosophical realism, termed pragmatic realism (cf. Hjørland, 2004a). What are
the implications of pragmatic realism for information science? Basically, the
implication is that it becomes important to distinguish carefully between
objective and subjective knowledge, where studies of users are seen as studies
of subjective knowledge.
When users seek information, they always do so on the basis
of their subjective knowledge. They may or may not be familiar with the
objective possibilities for searching. For example, users may not know about
citation indexes and they may thus miss an important search opportunity that
exists objectively (cf. Hjørland, 2000). When studying users’ information
seeking behavior (which is, of course, based on the users’ subjective knowledge
of information sources), information scientists need to interpret such studies
on knowledge about the objective possibilities. One may say, of course, that
nobody know the objective possibilities. The argument is, however, that
information scientists should know them better than the users that they are
investigating. Information scientists, more than the users, should know about
possibilities and limitations in search engines, citation indexes, thesauri,
controlled vocabularies etc. They should advice the users on how to exploit
those possibilities. Consequently when studying users’ behavior this should be
interpreted on the basis of some kind of model of the objective possibilities,
e.g., the UNISIST model (see Fjordback Søndergaard; Andersen & Hjørland, 2003).
Such a model is based on the information scientists’ subjective view (and could
possibly be wrong or unhelpful). Such models must be introduced, discussed and
refined in the scientific literature if IS is going to make progress. A given
piece of knowledge is always subjective, but it is supposed that some answers
are more correct or fruitful than other, and the only way to find out is to
consider the arguments than supports a given view.
Pragmatic realism is also important in order to understand
relevance in information science. Whether or not a certain substance is relevant
as a cure for cancer is ultimately decided in medical research, not by asking
patients or users of medical services. It is of course always legitimate to be
skeptical about a knowledge claim. This will lead into a discussion about the
basis for that claim and ultimately to epistemological discussions. A thing is
relevant for a given purpose if it contributes to reaching the goal – whether or
not the user think so. In a similar way is the validity―and thus the
relevance―of a document claiming that a certain substance is relevant as a cure
for cancer also ultimately decided in medical research, not by asking users of
information services.
In some domains, e.g. rock music, the users may be
“experts”, at least until this field is properly represented in musicology. In
other fields, such as child psychology, experienced mothers may have adequate
competencies for which a degree in developmental psychology cannot be a
substitute. This last example is related to different epistemologies, i.e. to
different views of how to obtain knowledge. Developmental psychology has mainly
been dominated by a “positivist” epistemology, while other epistemologies give a
higher status to the kind of experiences that motherhood represents. In both
cases the realist view applies: A given document may or may not be relevant to a
given purpose, whether or not the user believes this to be so. Of course, a
document is not relevant in a situation if the user cannot understand it. In
higher education it is normally attempted to provide students with the knowledge
necessary in order to study the documents that are deemed to be relevant. In the
sciences one learn mathematics and in theology one learns Greek, Latin and
Hebrew. The underlying philosophy is that the relevant texts presuppose these
kinds of learning. Again, different opinions may exist. Different views of what
is relevant may exist as different “paradigms” in all subjects. User’s
information behavior should be interpreted on the basis of such paradigms.
Conclusion:
Domain analysis is an approach to IS that has important implications for user
studies. Its strength is that it represents a more correct and fruitful theory
about cognitive processes compared to traditional cognitive views. It may
contribute to the development of information systems that are specific to
different groups of users. Its drawback is that it is more difficult to carry
out user studies because they should be interpreted on the basis of a model of
the objective search possibilities.
"Lévi-Strauss rejected Durkheim’s Platonist conception of a collective conscience detached from the individual members of the society, and adopted Marcel Mauss’s adaptation that the sociological structures the psychological through the process of upbringing. The deeply sociologically saturated upbringing which is characteristic of any process of socialization shapes and constructs individual minds so that the ‘objective world’ is understood from within a particular framework of classifications." (Boyne, 2006, p. 26; underlining added).
Literature:
Boyne, R. (2006). Classification. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 21-30
Fjordback Søndergaard, T.; Andersen, J. & Hjørland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information. Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 278-320. http://www.db.dk/bh/UNISIST.pdf
Gärdenfors, P. (1999). Cognitive Science: From computers to anthills as models of human thought. Human IT, vol. 3(2), pp. http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-99/pg.htm
Hjørland, B. (2000). Information Seeking Behavior. What should a general theory look like? Paper presented at the ISIC2000 Conference in Borås 17th August 2000. Published in: The New Review of Information behaviour research: Studies of information seeking in context, Vol. 1 (London: Taylor Graham. ISSN: 1471-6313), pp. 19-33.
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.
Hjørland, B. (2004). Arguments for Philosophical Realism in Library and Information Science. Library Trends, 52(3), 488-506. http://www.db.dk/bh/Realism_Library%20Trends.pdf
Hjørland, B. (2005). The socio-cognitive theory of users situated in specific contexts and domains. IN: Theories of information behavior. Ed. by Karen E. Fisher, Sanda Erdelez & Lynne E. F. McKechnie. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. (pp. 339-343).
Birger Hjørland
Last edited: 27-06-2006