Pigeonholes and Punchcards: Identifying the Division between Library Classification Research and Information Retrieval Research, 1952-1970
Reference Type | Thesis |
---|---|
Year of Publication |
2002
|
Contributors |
Author:
Shawne D. Miksa Tertiary Author: Kathleen Burnett |
Number of Pages |
167 pp.
|
Language | |
University |
Florida State University
|
Thesis Type |
Ph.D. Dissertation
|
Download citation | |
Chronological Period | |
Abstract |
An author co-citation analysis was undertaken to determine the relationship between library classification research and information retrieval research during the eighteen year time span of 1952 to 1970. The Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR), two of the best known research groups in the two areas in question, provided authors to be used in the analysis. A cluster analysis revealed four distinct clusters among a sample of twenty-one authors. These four clusters were composed of classificationists, automated retrievalists, theorists, and evaluators of information retrieval systems. Multidimensional scaling placed the authors on a two-dimensional map in accordance with proximity values and revealed either intellectual distance or closeness among the authors. A factor analysis resulted in the twenty-one authors loading on four factors that closely resembled the cluster characteristics with some additional author cross-over among the factors. From this trio of multivariate analyses the two dimensions of the map, the X-Y axes, were determined as use of mechanization (Y) and the conceptual view (X). As clusters move left to right a shift in conceptual view from a holistic to an atomistic overview of information organization and retrieval was observed. The use of mechanization decreases as one moves down the vertical axis. Application of three concepts taken from the theory of normative behavior—social types, worldviews, and information behavior—aided in interpreting the behavioral aspect of the CRG and the CDCR members as revealed by the author co-citation analysis. Future research will include a bibliographic coupling analysis and a complete content analysis of the published works involved. These two analyses will provide further insight into the degree of conceptual similarities and differences between the CRG and the CDCR during the eighteen time period in question.
|