Information retrieval (IR) and the paradox of change: An analysis using the philosophy of Parmenides

Purpose – This paper aims to explore whether philosophical insights from Plato's dialogue “Parmenides” on the complex and often paradoxical nature of change can illuminate the nature of information retrieval (IR). IR is modelled as a dialectic process involving mutually dependent yet conflicting forces between the subjective and the objective. These forces operate to produce change in the subjective experience of users (becoming informed) through facilitating a relationship with objective documents. Accurately modelling, predicting and enabling this process remains a persistent problem for IR and this paper seeks to examine the extent to which this is because of the nature of change.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a conceptual analysis and literature review.Findings – The problem of change (what it is, how it happens and how we can know it has happened) is essential to our understanding of information as information normally implies some kind of change in knowledge state. Any process of change,...

[1]  David Ellis.  The Dilemma of Measurement in Information Retrieval Research , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Julian Warner.  A labor theoretic approach to information retrieval , 2008 .

[3]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  The Turn - Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context , 2005, The Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval.

[4]  Carol Tenopir.  Why I Still Teach Dialog , 2001 .

[5]  David Bawden,et al.  Forgotten and undiscovered knowledge , 2004, J. Documentation.

[6]  Fred D. Miller,et al.  A new Aristotle reader , 1987 .

[7]  Charles Cole,et al.  Information as Process: The Difference Between Corroborating Evidence and 'Information' in Humanistic Research Domains , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[8]  Ryen W. White,et al.  Studying the use of popular destinations to enhance web search interaction , 2007, SIGIR.

[9]  Forbes Gibb,et al.  A dialectical approach to information retrieval , 2007, J. Documentation.

[10]  B. C. Brookes.  The foundations of information science. Part I. Philosophical aspects , 1980 .

[11]  James Backhouse,et al.  Language and Representation in Information Reterieval , 1993 .

[12]  Nigel Ford,et al.  Information retrieval and creativity: towards support for the original thinker , 1999, J. Documentation.

[13]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Domain analysis in information science Eleven approaches traditional as well as innovative , 2002 .

[14]  S. D. Neill,et al.  The Dilemma of the Subjective in Information Organisation and Retrieval , 1987, J. Documentation.

[15]  David Ellis,et al.  The Physical and Cognitive Paradigms in Information Retrieval Research , 1992, J. Documentation.

[16]  Michael K. Buckland,et al.  Information and information systems , 1991 .

[17]  John M. Budd,et al.  Information as sign: semiotics and information science , 2003, J. Documentation.

[18]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  Dialectical inquiring systems: A new methodology for information science , 1972, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[19]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[20]  Arthur R. Taylor,et al.  User relevance criteria choices and the information search process , 2012, Inf. Process. Manag..

[21]  David C. Blair,et al.  Wittgenstein, Language and Information: "Back to the Rough Ground!" , 2006, CoLIS.

[22]  D. Swanson.  Undiscovered Public Knowledge , 1986 .

[23]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Concept theory , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[24]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Library and information science: practice, theory, and philosophical basis , 2000, Inf. Process. Manag..

[25]  Birger Hjørland,et al.  Information Seeking and Subject Representation: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Information Science , 1997 .

[26]  David Bawden,et al.  Einstein in the office: is information really necessary? , 2006, J. Documentation.

[27]  D. C. Blair,et al.  Language and Representation in Information Retrieval , 1990 .

[28]  David J. DeMOSS,et al.  A New Aristotle Reader , 1988 .

[29]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Information Retrieval Interaction , 1992 .

[30]  Michael K. Buckland,et al.  Information as thing , 1991, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[31]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[32]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[33]  Forbes Gibb,et al.  Meaning in philosophy and meaning in information retrieval (IR) , 2009, J. Documentation.

[34]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[35]  B. Magee.  Wagner and Philosophy , 2000 .

[36]  C. J. van Rijsbergen.  Information Retrieval and Information Reasoning , 1995, Computer Science Today.

[37]  Ulises Cervi.  Towards the Evaluation of Literature Based Discovery , 2008 .

[38]  F. W. Lancaster,et al.  Information retrieval systems; characteristics, testing, and evaluation , 1968 .

[39]  Jens-Erik Mai,et al.  The modernity of classification , 2011, J. Documentation.

[40]  J A Swets,et al.  Information Retrieval Systems. , 1963, Science.

[41]  Pia Borlund,et al.  The concept of relevance in IR , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[42]  Clare Thornley,et al.  Dilemmas in information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR): Recurring challenges or new solutions? , 2009, Aslib Proc..

[43]  Birger Hjørland.  Concept theory , 2009 .

[44]  M. J. Petry.  The Phenomenology of Spirit , 1978 .

[45]  S. Benford,et al.  Acknowledgements , 1966 .

[46]  Alexander Dekhtyar,et al.  Information Retrieval , 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[47]  Francisco Marcos de Assis,et al.  A dialectical approach for classification of DW-MR Alzheimer’s images , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[48]  Stephen E. Robertson,et al.  On the history of evaluation in IR , 2008, J. Inf. Sci..

[49]  David Bawden,et al.  The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..