A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition

Birger Hjørland

A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition

Institut for Kommunikation - Forskning

86 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) claimed the refutation of the definition of relevance provided by the present author. The present paper examines Nicolaisen’s arguments, finds that Nicolaisen fails to consider the difference between defining the concept of relevance and measuring instances of it, and that his arguments therefore are misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems discussed by Nicolaisen may be important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. It is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Artikelnummer	colis1628.html
Tidsskrift	Information Research
Vol/bind	22
Udgave nummer	1
Antal sider	11
ISSN	1368-1613
Status	Udgivet - 24 mar. 2017
Begivenhed	Proceedings of CoLIS9 : Conceptions of Library and Information Science - Uppsala, Sverige Varighed: 26 jun. 2016 → 29 jun. 2016 Konferencens nummer: 9

Konference

Konference	Proceedings of CoLIS9
Nummer	9
Land/Område	Sverige
By	Uppsala
Periode	26/06/2016 → 29/06/2016

Adgang til dokumentet

Hjorland reply_ver3Accepteret manuskript, 67,3 KB

http://InformationR.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1628.html

Citationsformater

@article{cc9d502126a54657a53b058627a45cb6,

title = "A rejoinder to Nicolaisen{\textquoteright}s refutation of Hj{\o}rland{\textquoteright}s relevance definition",

abstract = "Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen{\textquoteright}s arguments and finds that Nicolaisen has failed to consider the differences between defining the concept of relevance and the measurement instances of it. His arguments are, therefore, misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems as discussed by Nicolaisen are important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. As a result, it is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and it is the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far. ",

author = "Birger Hj{\o}rland",

note = "Er publiceret i {"}Information Research, an international electronic journal{"}; Proceedings of CoLIS9 ; Conference date: 26-06-2016 Through 29-06-2016",

year = "2017",

month = mar,

day = "24",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

journal = "Information Research",

issn = "1368-1613",

publisher = "University of Sheffield Department of Information Studies",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition

AU - Hjørland, Birger

N1 - Conference code: 9

PY - 2017/3/24

Y1 - 2017/3/24

N2 - Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen’s arguments and finds that Nicolaisen has failed to consider the differences between defining the concept of relevance and the measurement instances of it. His arguments are, therefore, misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems as discussed by Nicolaisen are important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. As a result, it is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and it is the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far.

AB - Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen’s arguments and finds that Nicolaisen has failed to consider the differences between defining the concept of relevance and the measurement instances of it. His arguments are, therefore, misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems as discussed by Nicolaisen are important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. As a result, it is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and it is the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far.

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1368-1613

VL - 22

JO - Information Research

JF - Information Research

IS - 1

M1 - colis1628.html

T2 - Proceedings of CoLIS9

Y2 - 26 June 2016 through 29 June 2016

ER -