• Epistemologies as (normative) theories of information seeking and use. Oral presentation for the session on Information Seeking Behavior in Epistemological Light at the ASIS&T Annual Meeting in Charlotte, NC (November 1., 2005).

      Hjørland, Birger; Nicolaisen, Jeppe (2005-11)
      This presentation demonstrates how epistemological theories may be seen as normative theories guiding information behavior.
    • Practical potentials of Bradford's law: a critical examination of the received view.

      Nicolaisen, Jeppe; Hjørland, Birger (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2007)
      Literature studies reveal that the concept of â subjectâ has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordâ s law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of â subjectâ produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field. The implication is that Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradfordâ s law needs to be revised.
    • A Rejoinder to Beghtol (2004). Knowledge Organization, 31(3), 199-201.

      Nicolaisen, Jeppe; Hjørland, Birger (ERGON-Verlag, 2004)
      In our comment (Hjørland & Nicolaisen, 2004) to Beghtol (2003) we were reacting to the fact that Beghtol describes the classifications developed by scholars as â naïveâ while she describes the classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as â professionalâ . We explained that we feared this unfortunate terminology is rooted in misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and scholarly classification on the one hand and LIS classifications on the other. We stated that only a correction of this misjudgment might give us in the field of KO a chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world. Beghtol (2004), in her reply to us, claims that the term â naïveâ as she defines it, is not a pejorative term. But she fails to explain why. This paper examines and responds to the views put forwards in Beghtol (2004).
    • Scientific and Scholarly Classifications are not "Naïve": a Comment to Begthol (2003). Knowledge Organization, 31(1), 55-61.

      Hjørland, Birger; Nicolaisen, Jeppe (2004)
      In her paper Beghtol (2003) outlines how scholarly activities and research leads to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the classifications developed by scholars as â naïveâ while she describes the classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as â professionalâ . We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply anchored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and scholarly classification on the one side and LIS classifications on the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.