Browse > Article

Information Systems in Interdisciplinary Research: Analytic and Holistic Ways to Access Information Science Knowledge  

Engerer, Volkmar P. (Department of Information Studies, University of Copenhagen)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.7, no.2, 2019 , pp. 6-22 More about this Journal
The paper explores how information science knowledge can be used systematically in digital, interdisciplinary research settings and gives a conceptual analysis of the relationship between information science knowledge as donor and other research as receiver in an interdisciplinary project environment. The validity of the approach is demonstrated by the author's work on the project "The Primacy of Tense: A. N. Prior Now and Then." The study proposes a hybrid approach, combining analysis and synthesis. The analytical component identifies information systems, assigns an information system type to them, and accesses the information science knowledge associated with that type. The synthetic part focuses on the connections between information systems according to the receiver discipline's practices. The paper makes explicit the actions of experienced information professionals, thereby making their expertise accessible to others. The analytical and synthetic strategies are explained by linking them to two modes of researchers in the receiver discipline, how they act as researchers and what they know about it. The paper offers information professionals concrete assistance with identification of the appropriate strategy for accessing professional knowledge and taking appropriate actions and development decisions.
interdisciplinarity; project collaboration; information system; research communication; digital research environment; Arthur N. Prior;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Flanders, J. (2012). Collaboration and dissent: Challenges of collaborative standards for digital humanities. In M. Deegan & W. McCarty (Eds.), Collaborative research in the digital humanities (pp. 67-80). Farnham: Ashgate Pub.
2 Floridi, L. (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3 Foskett, D. J. (1994). Thesaurus. In K. Sparck Jones & P. Willet (Eds.), Readings in information retrieval (pp. 111-134). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
4 Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5 Frohmann, B. (1990). Rules of indexing: A critique of mentalism in information retrieval theory. Journal of Documentation, 46(2), 81-101.   DOI
6 Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88-96.   DOI
7 Gurak, L. J., & Antonijevic, S. (2012). The psychology of blogging: You, me, and everyone in between. In J. Hughes (Ed.), SAGE internet research methods (pp. v4-93-v4-103). London: Sage.
8 Hasle, P. F. V., & Ohrstrom, P. (2016). Foundations of temporal logic: The WWW-site for Prior-studies. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from
9 Hider, P. (2012). Information resource description: Creating and managing metadata. London: Facet.
10 Lopez-Huertas, M. J. (2015). Domain analysis for interdisciplinary knowledge domains. Knowledge Organization, 42(8), 570-580.   DOI
11 Lykke Nielsen, M. (2001). A framework for work task based thesaurus design. Journal of Documentation, 57(6), 774-797.   DOI
12 Mai, J. (1999). Deconstructing the indexing process. Advances in Librarianship, 23, 269-298.   DOI
13 Millar, L. A. (2017). Archives: Principles and practices. London: Facet.
14 Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization, an introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15 Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.   DOI
16 Notari, M., & Honegger, B. D. (2012). Wiki: An archetypical tool for collaborative learning in the digital age. In S. Bocconi & G. Trentin (Eds.), Wiki supporting formal and informal learning (pp. 21-39). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
17 Olson, J. S., Hofer, E. C., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. M., Cooney, D., & Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 73-97). Cambridge: MIT Press.
18 Osterlund, C., Snyder, J., Sawyer, S., Sharma, S., & Willis, M. (2015). Documenting work: From participant observation to participant tracing. In K. D. Elsbach & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research (pp. 391-400). New York: Routledge.
19 Pandey, R. C. (2003). Information retrieval system: A linguistic study. Delhi: Abhijeet Publications.
20 Pickard, A. J. (2013). Research methods in information. London: Facet.
21 Tredinnick, L. (2007). Digital information culture: The individual and society in the digital age. Oxford: Chandos.
22 Urquhart, C. (2018). Information systems, process and practice. London: Facet.
23 Vasileiadou, E. (2012). Research teams as complex systems: Implications for knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(2), 118-127.   DOI
24 Wallace, P. M. (2001). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25 Wallace, P. M. (2015). Introduction to information systems. Boston: Pearson.
26 Warner, J. (2010). Human information retrieval. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27 King, B. E., & Reinold, K. (2008). Finding the concept, not just the word, a librarian's guide to ontologies and semantics. Oxford: Chandos.
28 Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: A concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355-383.   DOI
29 Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30 Krohn, W. (2010). Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary knowledge. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 31-49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31 Lin, H., Fan, W., & Zhang, Z. (2009). A qualitative study of web-based knowledge communities: Examining success factors. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 5(3), 39-57.   DOI
32 Eggert, P. (2009). The book, the E-text and the 'work-site'. In M. Deegan & K. Sutherland (Eds.), Text editing, print and the digital world (pp. 63-82). Farnham: Ashgate.
33 Elsayed, I., Madey, G., & Brezany, P. (2011). Portals for collaborative research communities: Two distinguished case studies. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 23(3), 269-278.   DOI
34 Engerer, V. (2017a). Control and syntagmatization: Vocabulary requirements in information retrieval thesauri and natural language lexicons. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(6), 1480-1490.   DOI
35 Engerer, V. (2017b). Exploring interdisciplinary relationships between linguistics and information retrieval from the 1960s to today. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 660-680.   DOI
36 Engerer, V., & Albretsen, J. (2017). The Prior internet resources 2017: Information systems and development perspectives. In P. F. V. Hasle, P. Blackburn, & P. Ohrstrom (Eds.), Logic and philosophy of time: Themes from Prior (pp. 223-249). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
37 Littlejohn, A. (2005). Key issues in the design and delivery of technology-enhanced learning. In P. Levy & S. Roberts (Eds.), Developing the new learning environment: The changing role of the academic librarian (pp. 70-90). London: Facet.
38 Ramage, M. A. (2010). Evaluating collaborative technologies: A simple method. In H. M. Donelan, K. L. Kear, & M. A. Ramage (Eds.), Online communication and collaboration: A reader (pp. 73-77). New York: Routledge.
39 Robinson, L. (2009). Information science: Communication chain and domain analysis. Journal of Documentation, 65(4), 578-591.   DOI
40 Robinson, L., & Schulz, J. (2012). New avenues for sociological inquiry: Evolving forms of ethnographic practice. In J. Hughes (Ed.), SAGE internet research methods (pp. v4-33-v4-47). London: Sage.
41 Rolland, B., & Potter, J. D. (2017). On the facilitation of collaborative research: Enter stage left, the consortium director. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 26(11), 1581-1582.   DOI
42 Ruthven, I., & Kelly, D. (2011). Interactive information seeking, behaviour and retrieval. London: Facet.
43 Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44 Stock, W. G., & Stock, M. (2013). Handbook of information science. Berlin: deGruyter Saur.
45 Stuart, D. (2015). Practical ontologies for information professionals. London: Facet.
46 Lancaster, F. W. (2003). Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice. London: Facet.
47 Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J. S., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., ... Olson, G. M. (2008). From shared databases to communities of practice: A taxonomy of collaboratories. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 53-72). Cambridge: MIT Press.
48 Engerer, V., & Gudiksen, J. (2016). From cognition to practice: theoretical perspectives on the relationship between disciplinary learning and information seeking. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from
49 Engerer, V., Roued-Cunliffe, H., Albretsen, J., & Hasle, P. F. V. (2017). The prior-project: From archive boxes to a research community. In Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries, Gothenburg, Sweden, March 14-16 (pp. 53-57).
50 Engerer, V., & Sabir, F. (2018). Information professionals meet Arthur Prior. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. doi:10.1177/0961000618799527.   DOI
51 Bourgeois, D. T. (2014). Information systems for business and beyond. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from
52 Broughton, V. (2006). Essential thesaurus construction. London: Facet.
53 Burton Swanson, E. (2009). Information systems. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (pp. 2635-2642). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
54 Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.
55 Chowdhury, G. G. (2010). Introduction to modern information retrieval. London: Facet.
56 Thomas, D., Fowler, S., & Johnson, V. (2017). The silence of the archive. London: Facet.
57 Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
58 Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards new ways of terminology description: The sociocognitive-approach. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
59 Tennis, J. T. (2003). Two axes of domains for domain analysis. Knowledge Organization, 30(3), 191-195.
60 Tompkins, P., Perry, S., & Lippincott, J. K. (1998). New learning communities: Collaboration, networking, and information literacy. Information Technology and Libraries, 17(2), 100-106.
61 Weinberg, B. H. (2009). Indexing: History and theory. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (pp. 2277-2290). New York: Marcel Dekker.
62 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63 Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32-36.   DOI
64 Preece, J., Sharp, H., & Rogers, Y. (2015). Interaction design, beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester: Wiley.
65 Prior Project Group. (2017). The Primacy of Tense: A. N. Prior Now and Then. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from
66 Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105-122.   DOI
67 Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the Internet (pp. 99-117). Cambridge: MIT Press.
68 Daniel, B. K. (2011). Handbook of research on methods and techniques for studying virtual communities: Paradigms and phenomena. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
69 Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet L., & Lauterbach, E. (2003). Sense-making methodology reader, selected writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
70 Ding, W., Lin, X., Zarro, M., & Marchionini, G. (2017). Information architecture, the design and integration of information spaces. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
71 Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Lis, L., Stein, A., & Steinhorst, M. (2012). Research portals: Status quo and improvement perspectives. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 27-46.   DOI
72 Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 28-37.   DOI
73 Blair, D. C. (1990). Language and representation in information retrieval. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
74 Blair, D. C., & Kimbrough, S. O. (2002). Exemplary documents: A foundation for information retrieval design. Information Processing & Management, 38(3), 363-379.   DOI
75 Boaduo, N. A. (2011). Research methods for studying virtual communities. In B. K. Daniel (Ed.), Handbook of research on methods and techniques for studying virtual communities: Paradigms and phenomena (pp. 549-610). Hershey: Information Science Reference.
76 Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). What is an information system? In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA (pp. 4959-4968). Piscataway: IEEE.
77 Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.
78 Borlund, P. (2013). Interactive information retrieval: An introduction. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 1(3), 12-32.   DOI
79 Albrechtsen, H. (2015). This is not domain analysis. Knowledge Organization, 42(8), 557-561.   DOI
80 Albretsen, J. (2016). The virtual lab for prior studies. Retrieved April 10, 2019 from
81 Hjorland, B. (1998). Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics. Knowledge Organization, 25(1-2), 16-31.
82 Hjorland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science: Eleven approaches: Traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462.   DOI
83 Hjorland, B. (2003). Fundamentals of knowledge organization. Knowledge Organization, 30(2), 87-111.
84 Hjorland, B. (2008). What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge Organization, 35(2-3), 86-101.   DOI
85 Hjorland, B. (2013). Theories of knowledge organization: Theories of knowledge. Knowledge Organization, 40(3), 169-181.   DOI
86 Hjorland, B. (2017). Domain analysis. Knowledge Organization, 44(6), 436-464.   DOI
87 Hockey, S. (2012). Digital humanities in the age of the internet: Reaching out to other communities. In M. Deegan & W. McCarty (Eds.), Collaborative research in the digital humanities (pp. 81-92). Farnham: Ashgate Pub.
88 Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Moskaliuk, J. (2012). Wiki-supported knowledge building - theory, research, and application. In S. Bocconi & G. Trentin (Eds.), Wiki supporting formal and informal learning (pp. 41-55). Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.
89 Antoniou, G., Groth, P., van Harmelen, F., & Hoekstra, R. (2012). A semantic web primer. Cambridge: MIT Press.
90 Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (2011). Modern information retrieval: The concepts and technology behind search. New York: Addison Wesley.
91 Batley, S. (2005). Classification in theory and practice. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
92 Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2012). An introduction to information science. London: Facet.
93 Erkens, G., Prangsma, M. E., & Jaspers, J. G. M. (2006). Planning and coordinating activities in collaborative learning. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 233-263). Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
94 Finholt, T. A. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 73-107.   DOI