PHENOMENA

We began by enumerating the kinds of low-level phenomena(objects, activities, etc.) which we regard as the proper
concern of information science.

The table overleaf is acrudely classified array of the categories of phenomena that
we would include.
constraints

Fringe subjects of study include the(eg economic) on the above.

There was disagreement as to the extent to which information science should be concerned with the ends of the dumbbell ... eg with the mental processes involved in writing
and in understanding.
But we agreed that, although in theseareas (and in some depth studies in the central portion)
information science might impinge on other disciplines (egpsychology, linguistics), it is not necessary or desirable
to put up hard and fast barriers.
The study of all these areas does not in itself constitute a science, but would do so if all the areas wererelated in an explanatorily powerful way to some centralconcept.
We consider that they can all be related to theconcept of information (or of informing), even though we did
not agree on a definition of this concept, and the necessary
pulling together has clearly not yet been done.

STEPHEN ROBERTSON

WHAT KIND OF SCIENCE IS INFORMATION SCIENCE?
The question, 'What kind of science should information
science be? 1 was split up into several component questions.
1.

What kinds of problems, issues, ideas should concern
information scientists?
For example, if a student submits a proposal for doctoral research or a dissertation
to a committee in an information science program orfi0-H-PrdtJ>
£•H

^

g

CD U U
CD 2 O0} 0 U-i
I -H CC > -H0 rd•H x: *w
•P QJ 0rd £ )gCOO•H0COCO -P
CD a04 CD>i-H

rd+JCDc;c-!-;V-P MH

10•HrHCD-PUCOM
U0ft

M-Hrd T5 O^£ CD
U rd Um0enoa>iE--Ps

CDG
^ — v

H COru >H•H <DU CO0 r-3v

cr: —*0rd
O*

JH

0*H

Cg

H

H<D•HrHrd•HT;a)uuQ) u•P rdC ^H
•H U

£o•H
GrH +3rd rd CO - H
CDXC -PO G • H CD
•H 0 - P ^-P g > - H•H 3 • H
rd O -P tnCD

4JG«>.
CO -HrHCD
G 1V

fl ,~,rd coX Sru a O CD0)
4JCC O0 >1•H CO•Prdo 0
•HUrd —CD-P CD
O j£
2 -P COM O CD-PO
CO M - HO>
UCD-H co T3•P -P

O C tn-H

CD G

g g -HCD 3 > i
CO U M

fcnTS
O rdU- - MH I

CDO Gutn tn

P c;g

•H -H
£ rH
CD -H
•H (^a G

C> gu•pCO2 Utoe
M C
D0U

COCD O& U.Cw

COoCD CO H
•p CD - P04 rd>^ g

CD - P JHo.
oMac04rd - H0?

CDXJCJICOuordaGS(DGXCDGrdGHrdgM0M-l£H3rdo•H4Jft+JCO-P
CD
COtn

COCO CDg rH
CD -H-P MH
CO£>1
CO COCD

CDGrduu•P0COo>1GrdCD£ord

Qrd £>.
g -H
5H r H

Om tn
C CDH

•—'

EH

COo
•H
•P IM
CO O
•H
JH CO
CD CD
- P O. CO
O >, Mrd - P CD
JH
^rd TJ £,c G CD
Ofi CD>CD
H0SHU•HSCOCD CO-H 0• P CO• H CO> CD•H O•P 0O U
< CMCD CO
G —r d COCOCD•H•PCDCOM
CDX -HM ^O OA->
CD+J
•HCO -Pa«-Ho-H -P

CO U
<D O
•H-P U•H -H+J CD

CO CD
MH O CO -H CD-P CD
CO rd :*-P r-i +J
CD CD CDW -Pc>

togCD
HCD
4J
CO>i0Mmgonj

department, what considerations apply to decide whether
the project is information science or not?
2.

What criteria should the methods of arriving at validknowledge and explanations in IS observe?

Can we setstandards?
3.

Can political and social aspects of the question beseparated, even if we agree that they should be?

4.

Can we establish priorities in respect of the directionsof research in IS?

5.

Can we make judgments on the interdisciplinary specialties that exist within IS?

Should there be more, andhave we achieved the right level of specificity, a sufficient range of specialization?
The question was raised (but not settled) about the taxonomy of "kinds of science" to use for our answer:

pure,applied, programmatic, free, according to a Piaget-type model,
a star-model, etc.

The question of the aims of IS wasraised and it was suggested that it is to provide a foundation for taking care of the information needs of man, justas medical science is to take care of the health needs ofman.

With regard to questions (1) and (4) above, it wassuggested that key problems were:a)Development of 'empirical1 epistemologyb)

Developing a rationale for classifying documents as wellas users and to retrieve documents for user classes.

c)

The problem of how to represent knowledge in a field andorganise it so as to make it possible for an algorithm
to recognize problems and cope with them or to help
people to do so.
It was suggested that there is a need for the study of74.

users before files can be designed.
The most important files
may be non-bibliographic - eg medical records, census-type
data.
Perhaps the most important problem is how to help
users ask better questions, questions that would make betteruse of stored data as well as critically examine the existingdata for quality as well as gaps.
Needed most may be aids
to help certain willing users to improve their problemrepresentations and mechanisms for self-assessment and selfimprovement in the dynamics of query negotiations.
It was agreed that IS includes studies of the structure
and properties of information and communication, as well as
theory and methods for the transfer, storage, retrieval,classification/organization, evaluation and distribution ofinformation.
It also includes the processes and activities
that mediate knowledge from source to user.
It deals primarily with complex information in large files and theirhuman users.
With regard to question (2), different people perceive
standards differently.
For example, some researchers stressthe number of relevant items retrieved as a primary criterion
for evaluating IR systems while others stress the judgment ofquality of retrieved items.
We should, however, distinguishbetween standards adopted for evaluating IS products and criteria for evaluating the quality of research in IS, such as
how to validate claims, to assess significance of findings.
We did not discuss this further.
With regard to (5), IS was seen to be a point of viewthat draws on many disciplines.
It overlaps the viewpointof what is now called "Cognitive Science".
Yet, IS may
generate its own problems, an increasingly clear definition
may eventually emerge as these problems evolve and are recognized as solvable by IS concepts and methods.
At this time,
we should not be too concerned with formulating very precise
and consistent definitions of IS.
A loose, nominal definition may be just right for now.
A convergence and co-ordination of methodologies may bedesirable at this time.

Several strands that have beencreated need to be woven together, though a definitive 'closure1 of how this is to be done would be premature.

Two ofthese strands are the cognitive and the empirical.

Twomore are:1.

That core part of IS concerned with human informationseeking or response to information supply.
Associatedwith this is a need for methodologies to study such behaviour and for a philosophy or a calculus to describe theactivities.

2.

The formal, scientific study of files of stored messages(eg sequence of signs) and the technology and economics
of file-handling.
This requires study of languages
employed by users and authors as well as users in interacting with files and one another.

In sum, this group appreciated the work of the organizers
for raising the questions and the chance for grappling withthem.
It agreed that no closure on the question about thekind of science IS should be could be reached at this time.
M. KOCHEN

FORMALISMS
We tried to work within the framework drawn up by theReporting Group on Phenomena.
We found that most of theexisting formalisms in Information Science lay within themicro-level activities occurring along the transmission
channel (traditional documentation activities).
In trying
to diverge from this area to the outer edges of the matrix
we felt we were entering a "fuzzy region" which exists
because of the very weak nature of the laws of Information
Science.
There was a general consensus of opinion that
there is no necessity to construct new formalisms to cover
this region because there are many formalisms in otherdisciplines (computer science, operational research, management science, statistics, "fuzzy mathematics", etc.) which