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]

This text is a guest editorial that reflects on the influence and mentorship of Michael Buckland, a prominent figure in the field of library and information science. The author shares their personal experience of discovering Buckland's work and how it shaped their own research and career. They highlight Buckland's humility, curiosity, and willingness to take chances on others. The text also includes a brief mention of Buckland's concept of "information as thing" and its impact on the author's understanding of museum objects as documents. Overall, the text serves as a tribute to Buckland's mentorship and the lasting impact he has had on the field. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Purpose: In this article the author would like to discuss information and the causal-temporal models as discussed in trauma theory and reports from trauma therapy. The article discusses two modes of temporality and the role of narrative explanations in informing the subject as to their past and present. Design/methodology/approach: Conceptual analysis. Findings: Information in trauma has different meanings, partly as a result of different senses of temporality that make up explanations of trauma in trauma theory. One important meaning is that of explanation itself as a cause or a therapeutic cure for trauma. Research limitations/implications: The research proposes that trauma and trauma theory need to be understood in terms of the role of explanation, with explanation being understood as persuasion. This follows the historical genealogy of trauma theory from its origins in hypnosis and psychoanalysis. Originality/value: The article examines the possibility of unconscious information and its effects in forming psychological subjectivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]