Search

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine Robert Pagès' 1948 conception of "auto-document" as a possible forerunner to the neo-documentalist conception of "documentality" as offered in Bernd Frohmann's 2012 article "The Documentality of Mme Briet's Antelope." Design/methodology/approach: This paper is conceptual and historical. Findings: Robert Pagès' concept of the "auto-document" in his 1948 article proposed an understanding of documents that depends on the "uniqueness" of a document. His article proposed a post-Otletian theory of documents similar to a discussion of documents by Bernd Frohmann in 2012 with the concept of "documentality." Further attention to Pagès work and to Frohmann's works could result in new understandings of Briet's works, could illuminate other works and authors understood as belonging to neo-documentation and could yield new understandings of documents and information from the perspective of documentality as a new philosophy of information and documents. Research limitations/implications: Further attention to Pagès' work and to Frohmann's works could yield new understandings of documents and the relation of documentary types across natural and sociocultural domains and bring renewed attention to documentality as a new philosophy of information and documents. Practical implications: Attention to these issues could broaden the study of documents and documentation, increase the historical understanding of Suzanne Briet's works and bring light to other works in neo-documentation, particularly in regard to the concept of documentality as a new philosophy of documentation and information. Social implications: Attention to these issues could broaden the study of documents and documentation to include more broadly animal and other natural entities and our relationships to them. The works cited also illuminate an empirical science understanding of documents, documentary evidence and information. Originality/value: This is one of the first papers commenting on Robert Pagès' works and brings renewed attention to Bernd Frohmann's works, as well as to neo-documentation and its concept and philosophy of documentality, as a new philosophy of information and documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Michael Buckland's works have spanned theoretical, historical and practice-oriented foci and genre. This article focuses on some of his theoretical-historical works that span over 20 years, which demonstrate a reading and critique of European Documentation in terms of what has been called "Documentality." This turn to a philosophy of information called "Documentality" marks the moment of "neo-documentation." This article surveys this moment in Buckland's works by reading his articles "Information as Thing," "What is a 'Document'?", and "Documentality Beyond Documents." It shows the transition from Documentation as a philosophy of information as representation to Documentality as a philosophy of information as function and performance. Some concepts and works of Bruno Latour are used to illuminate this transition from Documentation to Documentality. Implications and further research directions are discussed at the end. Design/methodology/approach: Conceptual and historical analyses. Findings: The article follows a neo-documentalist transition in Buckland's works in the thinking of documents from an Otletian representationalist epistemology ("Documentation") to a functionalist and performative epistemology ("Documentality") for documents. Research limitations/implications: This is a conceptual work on a limited corpus in Buckland's oeuvre. It has a limited discussion of Documentality in the works of other writers, namely the works of Bernd Frohmann and Maurizio Ferraris. Practical implications: The article points to historical shifts in the study of documents in Library and Information Science. Social implications: Documentality critically and materially studies documents in sociotechnical information management systems and elsewhere. Originality/value: This work highlights the importance of the above works and the importance of the neo-documentalist perspective of Documentality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]