Post on 07-Apr-2023
Marek Nahotko
Model of scientific publishing as knowledge organization
process.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is exploration of possibilities of knowledge organization (KO) approach to
scientific publishing. Resulting research model of KO in publishing represents relations between data
organization (DO), information organization (IO) and KO in cycle of scientific research process. The role
and place of knowledge organization systems (KOS), meant as metadiscourse tools is underlined. It is close
to Hjørland’s broader sense of KO (Hjørland, 2008, 86), where it can be treated as a social activity aimed at
assigning a specific organizational structure to some knowledge resources that facilitates users’ access to the
knowledge. This activity means, for example, the organization of information in the form of documents -
scientific publications, artifacts of knowledge - in the process of codification of knowledge. Furthermore, it
also includes the organization of documents in the society, their types, functions and methods of formation.
In this case, not information stored in documents are organized by the KOS, as in the narrow sense of KOS,
but the information and knowledge are organized in the form of documents with use of the KOS specific to
them.
1. Introduction
Creating the correct theories and models is one of the most important and
challenging objectives of science. Modeling in the information science is a common
way of presenting entities, processes and relationships. Many models are created for
both the process of publishing scientific research results and process of modeling
knowledge. John Mackenzie Owen writes about two types of such models: the first are
models, in which the conduit metaphor is used, with assumption that information flows
from the sender to the receiver through a conduit or channel. The author presented
several of such models (Mackenzie Owen, 2007, 80). Another type of the model are
cognitive models in which scientific communication is perceived as the process of
applying information that reflects the mental state (knowledge) of the author, in order
to change the knowledge state of the recipient. In this regard, dozens of different
models were created. Only the models and theories in the field of information behavior
were counted in number exceeding 70 (Fisher, Erdelez, McKechnie, 2005), and
certainly they are not all the existing ones.
According to Case modeling is sometimes associated with the formation of a formal
theory (Case, 2007, 120). Models, by the fact that they are often presented in a graphic
form, are easier to understand than the theory; they may also refer to several theories
simultaneously. They often also apply to issues more specific than theories. Both are
simplified versions of reality.
Scientific communication, including publication of research is an important element
of knowledge transfer among the participants of the communication process, which is
implemented through the information. In the easiest way communication may be seen
2
as passing thoughts, ideas and meanings being the content of information from one
mind to another by means of language, what is called empiricism (Piaget, 1973, 10).
With the development of philosophical and psychological research in the twentieth
century, empiricism was abandoned and replaced by a new paradigm, generally known
as constructivism, on which I based my arguments. Sanna Talja et al. give the
definition of constructivism describing it as a view that reality is constructed by the
individual mind, but in close relations with the outside world (Talja, Tuominen,
Savolainen, 2005, 81). In information science constructivism is usually placed within
the so-called cognitive approach, which is based on cognitive psychology and research
methods in social sciences (Cisek, 2002, 109). The main difference between this
approach and cognitivism is that the former mainly emphasizes the way in which
knowledge is actively created by the knowing subject – individual mind, to organize
internal and external reality.
The paper presents a model of scientific publishing as a process of knowledge
organization. It combines the results of previous research on the modeling of scientific
publishing as part of the research process and knowledge process, including
information behavior. Apart from a general model describing the flow of knowledge,
information and data in the publishing as part of the research process, there will be
presented two detailed models, illustrating the processes of knowledge and
information. At the end the role of KOS in the knowledge conversion into information
and codification processes will be described.
2. Basic assumptions
Model presented in this paper is part of a larger work on innovation and changes in
scientific publishing. Changes in this area result in decreasing usefulness of conduit
models due to a significant increase in the number of entities required to take into
consideration and complexity of the relationship between them. Therefore, it became
necessary to move to a higher level of generality of the model, whart I accomplished by
presenting scientific publishing processes as processes of knowledge organization
(KO), and the scientific publishing system as a knowledge organization system (KOS).
The first step in creating the model was to decide what to choose for the basic
entities necessary in the model, mainly data, information and knowledge and how to
define it. There is also a very rich literature on this subject (Bates, 2005). However it
was not my goal to create new definitions. For proper modeling of the organization of
knowledge in scientific publishing I have taken the following basic assumptions:
• Knowledge (scientific) is an inherent feature of the human mind, in such a
meaning, that it does not function in isolation from it; knowledge state is personal
characteristic of each individual and it changes all the time as a result of interaction
with the environment. Interactions are possible through data and information
internalization. Information becomes knowledge when it is processed in the mind of the
3
individual, and knowledge becomes information when it is articulated and materialized
in the form of text, graphic, oral or other code (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, 109).
• Data acquisition takes place in interaction with the environment without the need
for the participation of other researchers as senders. Stimuli from the environment,
including laboratories and experimentations are supplied to the researcher in the form
of data.
• Information is embedded in messages send between scientists (Wilson, 2002).
Due to the scope of my research the most interesting to me is the information contained
in the published messages: scientific publications, which are part of the formal
communication. However, an informal scientific communication also exist, based on
unpublished information.
• After the communication act is realized, the mental structures of sender and
recipient of information are always different, because of differences in the original
structures. Two people having identical structures of knowledge don’t exist (Wilson,
2002). In addition, reception of a message and the information contained therein is
affected by a lot of external factors, forming the so-called context of scientific
communication act (Courtright, 2008, 276).
• From the above definitions understanding of KOS arises: they are tools of so
called metadiscourse, used for the conversion of knowledge to the form that allows to
communicate it, namely to the form of information, utilized in preparation of
publication (text). The individual knowledge can be converted, disseminated and
assimilated with use of KOSs understood in such a way, in the sense becoming a social
knowledge. With this point of view KO covers an area of research that until now was
called scientific writing (Hyland & Salager-Meyer, 2008) and publishing.
• In the same way information organization systems (IOS) are tools for indexing,
retrieval and sharing of information contained in publications.
Model of data, information and knowledge transfer in the process of scientific
communication, presented in the text is a step towards abandoning the linear mapping
KO processes occurring in scientific publishing. Scientific publishing is treated here as
a process of codification and externalization of knowledge. During its implementation,
researchers must decide on the objectives, which the codified knowledge will serve,
evaluate knowledge because of its usefulness from the point of view of the objectives
and identify possible forms of information, useful for achieving the objectives. They
must identify the potential audience of the publication and appropriate medium for
codification of knowledge and information distribution and use of KOS appropriate for
this audience and medium. All these processes can be considered as the effect of the
application of KOS in scientific publishing.
Figure 1. presents the processes related to the organization of data, information and
knowledge in the course of the scientific process, mainly publishing, as part of
scientific communication. Processes related to the publishing were situated in the
4
center of the picture, within the yellow frame. They will be presented in more detail
hereinafter. In the model numerous transfers of data, information, metadata and
metainformation were included, as well as the role of context in the course of these
transfers. Scientific knowledge is the center of the proposed model, the transfers of
information and data are used to change of individual researcher’s knowledge state
(mainly its growth) and its distribution in the form of information. It is not a
hierarchical model, as most previously presented in the literature.
Fig. 1. Knowledge organization in publishing processes.
3. Knowledge
Figure 2. presents the research process described in terms of cognitive processes
occurring in the mind of the researcher. These processes can be described as being
performed in three stages: 1. information (data) → 2. knowledge (tacit ↔ explicit) →
3. information, what can be briefly summarized as follows:
1. Obtaining information (and/or data) on the basis of which analysis necessary
for the proper conduct of research are implemented by the researcher. Data
and information is usually derived from a variety of sources. While research
data are usually internal, i.e. are formed in the near vicinity of a scientist (eg.
5
in his/her laboratory), as it must be directly observed, and are not
communicated, the information is external, published resource, possible to
communicate. Data prepared for communication (processed) becomes
information.
2. Intellectual analysis and processing of the information and data obtained,
resulting in the formation of new structures of tacit knowledge. If the holder
of knowledge considers that it is properly worthwhile, he shows it to other
researchers (in the form of information) for the interpretation and external
evaluation (and for other purposes, resulting from publishing functions). The
stages of obtaining and analyzing are repeated many times, as shown by the
cyclic graph on the right of Figure 2.
3. The stage of knowledge externalization, where knowledge in a form suitable
for its externalization (explicit knowledge) is converted into information
possible for publication. At this stage, decisions are made regarding the use
of KOS appropriate for discourse construction.
Fig. 2. Tacit and explicit knowledge and place of KOS. Entities of FRBR model were used.
On the right side of the fig. 2 cognitive processes are shown in a more detail,
according to David Kolb (Kolb, 1984, 36) implemented in the mind of the researcher.
Acquiring knowledge is being done in the process of learning. Cognitive processes
implemented during the production of knowledge in learning are good described by
Experiental Learning Model (ELT) by Kolb (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, 195). This model,
6
representing the four main stages of solving problems and creating knowledge in the
human mind, is using the idea of constructivism, presented earlier. Two of the stages:
concrete experience and abstract conceptualization are associated with gaining
experience, two other: reflective observation and active experimentation are for
processing the experiences. Learning by experience is the process of knowledge
constructing, containing the creative tension between these four modules of the model,
corresponding to the requirements of the environment. According to James Zull, such a
model of knowledge creation is a reflection of the way the human brain operates and
the result of its structure (Zull, 2002, 18-19).
4. Information and data
The research process, regardless of the field of knowledge and research methods
cannot be considered completed until the results are disseminated. Scientific
communication, as a part of formal communication being an inherent part of every
scientific activity, may be executed only through messages containing information. The
information contained in distributed message (the publication) is then organized in the
process of organizing information, for what IOS are commonly used. Two persons who
have achieved similar understanding of the information and/or data, must have a
common basic knowledge, and thus the similarity of mental structures, although the
similarity is never exact.
Figure 3. represents the place of the IO and KO processes in a model of information
behavior; both in Fig. 1. are shown within the yellow rectangle. There are also three
stages: Knowledge → Information (Data) → Knowledge (new). This figure was based
on previously published models of information behavior, particularly the models of
Tom Wilson (Wilson, 1997; Wilson, 1999), Brenda Dervin (Naumer, Fisher, Dervin,
2008), Barbara Niedźwiedzka (Niedźwiedzka, 2003) and Natalya Godbold (Godbold,
2006). It also has a resemblance to the DIK cycle (Tian, Nakamori, Wierzbicki, 2009,
79). Important role plays in the model the theory of anomalous states of knowledge
(ASK) by Belkin (Belkin, Oddy, Brooks, 1982, 65).
ASK theory explains the formation of informational need. According to the Belkin
theory, information retrieval occurs when the user finds the existence of the problem,
identifying the inadequacy of his knowledge. If the user’s state of knowledge is
adequate to the problems solved by him, the need for information does not occur. In a
similar way it is possible to explain the rise of researcher’s need for scientific
information creation. The state of a scientist knowledge who decides to become an
author is characterized by some type of anomaly, but this anomaly has opposite sign to
anomaly described by Belkin. As far as a scientist-user anomaly has a negative sign
(deficiency – a gap of knowledge) which the user is trying to compensate by seeking a
new information, scientist-author anomaly has a positive sign, because he/she obtained
the new knowledge.
7
Fig. 3. The place of KOS and IOS in model of the information behaviors.
In a typical situation, applied both to solve everyday problems, as well as research
problems Bertram Brookes equation is applicable:
K [S] + ΔI = K[S + ΔS] (Brookes, 1980, 131).
This equation expresses the functioning of interactive process between private,
inaccessible thoughts and mental structures of human and publicly available artifacts of
information (Todd, 1999, 11). Brookes equation in an interesting way was transformed
by Peter Ingwersen, who adopted some additional assumptions.
On the basis of the assumptions Ingwersen transformed the equation as follows:
pI → ΔI + K[S] → K[S + ΔS] → pI'
It means that the potential information pI is converted into information ΔI that is
mediated by the current state of knowledge K[S], transforming knowledge state into a
new state of K[S + ΔS] with effect (ΔS). Modified knowledge state can lead to the
creation of new information (pI'), potential for other users (Ingwersen, 1992, 31-32).
These equations relate to knowledge structures and the possibility of assimilation of
information by individuals. In science, however, it is necessary to look at these
processes in the context of the social environment where new information is created
when it has a novelty value not only from the point of view of the increase of
knowledge of the individual, but also some maximum state of knowledge in the area of
8
research. In the process of research data and information absorption is performed until
the increase of knowledge of researcher is so large that it exceeds the level of
knowledge of other people involved in the same research, which I marked as Kmax.
There is thus some critical knowledge level Kmax, beyond which the researcher decides
to complete the process of absorption of information (ASK-) and starts creating new
information (ASK+). Here data gathered in the research process is crucial, as it is the
value-added (new knowledge), as information allow to specify only until-critical
(current) state of the art. We can record the relationship:
Kmax[S] + ΔI + ΔD → K[S + ΔS] → ΔI'.
This means that if the ΔK > Kmax then I’ appears (a new information is created).
5. KOS
The main objective of this paper is to treat the tools employed to preparation of the
text for publication as KOS, allowing the externalization of author’s personal
knowledge through the creation and dissemination of information, transformed into the
knowledge of other people interested in the research subject. Despite the fact that
transfers of information are decoded individually, allowing for the development of
individual knowledge of recipients, the shared experiences within and across
disciplines (and therefore similarity of knowledge structures) are large enough to have
the opportunity to communicate (Bazerman, 1988, 26). In this sense, KOS in scientific
publishing are tools socially constructed in a particular community. Hence the growing
interest in academic writing has been accompanied by an interest in how academics
prepare texts rather than simply what they write about (Hyland & Salager-Meyer, 2007,
298). The question how is at the same time the question about KOS in scientific
publishing.
From this point of view, KOS is associated with the concept of metadiscourse, used
in research on the composition and structure of the text (Hyland, Tse, 2004, 156). It is
defined as a linguistic tools used for the organizing discourse or author’s position
definition with respect to both the content and the reader (Hyland, 2000, 109). Then the
creation of information is a social and communicational engagement between author
and reader, and metadiscourse is focused on ways used by the author in order to
determine his attitudes concerning both the content and recipients of the publication.
Ability to use KOS is part of the researcher profession. Every scientist is an author,
and every author must demonstrate familiarity with persuasive practices in his field of
expertise. It is necessary to know how to encode ideas, build justifications, construct
arguments in order to obtain a possibly large convince of potential recipients. It follows
that the appropriate use of natural language capabilities and in its particular subset –
specialized language of discipline can be regarded as the most basic KOS.
This type of conventional, socially recognized ways of using language in
metadiscourse theory are referred to as genres. The theory of genres is based on the
9
assumption, that based on the similarities and differences between texts, they can be
placed in different genres. In my opinion KOS can be treated as kind of genres. In such
a way KOS may relate to such text features, as adopted style, manner of presentation
and argumentation (Gross, Harmon, Reidy, 2009, 29). This assumption is based on two
postulates: 1) the similarity of the texts adopting the same KOS arise from the social
context of their creation and use, and 2) these features can be described in a manner of
binding similar texts with the choices and constraints of KOS affecting the creators of
texts. These assumptions are good reasons for arise, for example, analysis of the
structure of articles (=KOS), for distinguishing separate entities (like title, abstract…),
satisfying similar communication features (Harmon, Gross, 2010, 19). Every KOS is
associated with mind patterns known as schemata, constituting knowledge about text
types (Hyland, 1990, 67).
A method of operating of particular KOS depends on community of use. As
scientists create texts not to communicate with the whole world, but only with selected
individuals or groups, they apply methods and practices of communication common for
these groups (and distinct from other groups). This allows the conceptualization of
expectations, conventions and practices governing scientific communication.
Disciplinary conventions interact with the influences of national cultures, causing their
modifications.
6. Conclusions
The paper introduced the idea of KOS as tools for the creation, formulation and
spread of scientific knowledge – new ideas. These tools have already been the subject
of research, but treating them as one group serving specific purposes may facilitate the
development of the general theory. Putting in one model all processes associated with
the creation of data, information and scientific knowledge allows to indicate the
different stages of these processes and place of the elements taking part in them. At the
same time, the model proposed allows the rearrangement of the terminology used. Both
the KOS and IOS are the tools of knowledge used at different stages of knowledge-
creating processes, so they should to be studied separately, but with the awareness of
the proximity of these processes.
Model of scientific publishing as KOS aims to facilitate the description and
explanation of the changes taking place in scientific publishing as an innovation
activity from the perspective of the main actors: authors/users of published
information, who also are major providers of research. It must be assumed that their
needs will decide on the future application of new technologies in scientific
communication. At the same time ancillary roles of other participants in these
processes are also taken into account.
References:
10
Alavi, Maryam; Leidner, Dorothy (2001). Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues.
MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107-136.
Bates, Marcia (2005). Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for
information science. Information Research, 10(4).
[http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html]. Accessed 30 December 2013.
Bazerman, Charles (1988). Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the
experimental article in science. Madison: The Univ. of Wisconsin Press.
Belkin, Nicholas; Oddy, Robert; Brooks, Helen (1982). ASK for information retrieval:
Part I. Background and theory. Journal of Documentation, 38(2): 61-71.
Brookes, Bertram (1980). The foundations of information science. Part I. Philosophical
aspects. Journal of Information Science, 2(3/4): 125-133.
Case, Donald (2007). Looking for information. A survey of research on information
seeking, needs, and behavior. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Cisek, Sabina (2002). Filozoficzne aspekty informacji naukowej. Kraków: Wydaw. UJ.
Courtright, Christina (2008). Context in information behavior research. ARIST 41(1):
273-306.
Fisher, Karen; Erdelez, Sandra; McKechne, Lynne (2005). Theories of information
behavior. Medford, N.J.: ASIST.
Godbold, Natalya (2006). Beyond information seeking: towards a general model of
information behavior. Information Research, 11(4), art. 269.
[http://InformationR.net/ir/11-4/paper269.html]. Accessed 5 January 2014.
Gross, Alan; Harmon, Joseph; Reidy, Michael (2009). Communicationg science: the
scientific article from the 17th century to the present. West Lafayette: Parlor
Press.
Harmon, Joseph; Gross, Alan (2010). The craft of scientific communication. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press.
Hjørland, Birger (2008). What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? Knowledge
Organization 35(2/3): 86-101.
Hyland, Ken (2000). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing.
London: Longman.
Hyland, Ken (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. RELC Journal
21(1): 66-78.
Hyland, Ken; Salager-Meyer, Françoise (2008). Scientific writing. ARIST 42(1): 297-
338.
Hyland, Ken; Tse, Polly (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal.
Applied Linguistics 25(2):156-177.
Ingwersen, Peter (1992). Information retrieval interaction. London: Taylor Graham
Publ.
Kolb, David (1984). Experiental learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, Alice; Kolb, David (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing
experiental learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2): 193-212.
11
Mackenzie Owen, John Stuart (2007). The scientific article in the age of digitization.
Berlin: Springer Verl.
Naumer, Charles; Fisher, Karen; Dervin, Brenda (2008). Sense-making: a
methodological perspective. Sensemaking workshop. ACM SIG CHI
Conference. Florence 6 April 2008.
[http://www.dmrussell.googlepages.com/sensemakingworkshoppapers].
Accessed 25 November 2013.
Niedźwiedzka, Barbara (2003). A proposed general model of information behaviour.
Information Research, 9(1). [http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper164.html].
Accessed 5 January 2014.
Talja, Sanna; Tuominen, Kimmo; Savolainen, Reijo (2005). “Isms” in information
science: constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of
Documentation, 61(1): 79-101.
Tian, Jing; Nakamori, Yoshiteru; Wierzbicki, Andrzej (2009). Knowledge management
and knowledge creation in academia: a study based on surveys in a Japanese
research university. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2): 76-92.
Todd, Ross (1999). Utilization of heroin information by adolescent girls in Australia: a
cognitive analysis. Journal of ASIS, 50(1): 10-23.
Wilson, Thomas (2002). The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’. Information
Research, 8(1). [http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144]. Accessed 7 January
2014.
Wilson, Thomas (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of
Documentation, 55(3): 249-270.
Wilson, Thomas (1997). Information behaviour: an interdisciplinary perspective.
Information Processing & Management, 33(4): 551-572.
Zull, James (2002). The art of changing the brain. Enriching teaching by exploring the
biology of learning. Sterling: Stylus Publ.