Conceptual approaches for defining data, …

1 The field of Information Science is constantly , information scientists are required to regu-larly review and if necessary redefine its fundamentalbuilding blocks. This article is one of a group of fourarticles, which resulted from a Critical Delphi study con-ducted in 2003 2005. The study, Knowledge Map of Infor-mation Science, was aimed at exploring the foundationsof information science. The international panel was com-posed of 57 leading scholars from 16 countries, whorepresent (almost) all the major subfields and importantaspects of the field. This particular article documents130 definitions of data , information, and knowledgefor-mulated by 45 scholars, and maps the major conceptualapproaches for defining these three key field of Information Science (IS) is constantly chang-ing.

2 Therefore, information scientists are required to regu-larly review and if necessary redefine its fundamentalbuilding blocks. This article is one of a group of four arti-cles, which resulted from a Critical Delphi study conductedin 2003 2005. The study, Knowledge Map of InformationScience, explores the theoretical foundations of informationscience. It maps the Conceptual approaches for definingdata, information, and knowledge, which is presented here,maps the major conceptions of Information Science (Zins,2007a), portrays the profile of contemporary InformationScience by documenting 28 classification schemes compiledby leading scholars during the study (Zins, in press), and cul-minates in developing a systematic and scientifically basedknowledge map of the field (Zins, 2007b).

3 The three concepts of data , information, and knowledge,which are the foci of this article, are fundamental in the con-text of information science. They are often regarded as thebasic building blocks of the field. For this very reason, theformulation of systematic conceptions of data , information,and knowledge is crucial for the development of a system-atic conception of Information Science, as well as for th con-struction of a systematic knowledge map of the , Information, and KnowledgeThe academic and professional IS literature supports di-versified meanings for each concept. Evidently, the three keyconcepts are interrelated, but the nature of the relationsamong them is debatable, as well as their scholars claim that data , information,and knowledge are part of a sequential order.

4 data are theraw material for information, and information is the raw ma-terial for knowledge. However, if this is the case, then Infor-mation Science should explore data (information s buildingblocks) and information, but not knowledge, which is an en-tity of a higher order. Nevertheless, it seems that informationscience does explore knowledge because it includes the twosubfields, knowledge organization, and knowledge manage-ment, which can be confusing. Should we refute the sequentialorder? Should we change the name of the field from Infor-mation Scienceto Knowledge Science? Or should we go tothe extreme of excluding the two subfields of knowledge or-ganization and knowledge management from informationscience?

5 Information versus common view isthat knowledge is the product of a synthesis in the mind ofthe knowing person, and exists only in his or her mind. Ifthis is the case, we might well exclude the subfields ofknowledge organization and knowledge management frominformation science. Besides, is Albert Einstein s famousequation E MC2 (which is printed on my computerscreen, and is definitely separated from any human mind)information or knowledge? Is 2 2 4 information orknowledge?JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 58(4):479 493, 2007 Conceptual approaches for defining data , Information,and KnowledgeChaim ZinsKnowledge Mapping Research, 26 Hahaganah Street, Jerusalem 97852, Israel.

6 E-mail: November 15, 2005; revised March 10, 2006; accepted March 10,2006 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online 22 January 2007 in WileyInterScience ( ). DOI: alternative view that information andknowledge are synonyms is problematic too. If informationand knowledge are synonyms, could we use the term Knowl-edge Sciencerather than Information Science?Such issues are rooted in various subjectivist and empiri-cist schools of philosophy, and are not addressed here as aphilosophical treatise. This article is focused on exploringthe meanings of the three fundamental concepts of data , in-formation, and knowledge and the relations among them, asthey are perceived by leading scholars in the informationscience academic scientific methodology is Critical Delphi.

7 CriticalDelphi is a qualitative research methodology aimed at facil-itating critical and moderated discussions among experts(the panel). The international and intercultural panel iscomposed of 57 participants from 16 countries. It is uniqueand exceptional; it is comprised of leading scholars whorepresent nearly all the major subfields and important as-pects of the field (see Appendix A). The indirect discussionswere anonymous and were conducted in three successiverounds of structured questionnaires. The first questionnairecontained 24 detailed and open-ended questions covering16 pages. The second questionnaire contained 18 questionsin 16 pages.

8 The third questionnaire contained 13 questionsin 28 pages (see relevant excerpts from the three question-naires in Appendix B). The return rates were relatively high:57 scholars (100%) returned the first round, 39 ( ) re-turned the second round, and 39 ( ) returned the thirdround. Forty-three panelists ( ) participated in tworounds ( , R1 and either R2 or R3), and 35 panelists( ) participated in all three rounds. In addition, eachparticipant received his or her responses that I initially in-tended to cite in future publications. The responses were sentto the each panel member with relevant critical ( ) participants responded and approvedtheir responses.

9 Twenty three of them, which is (23out of 47), and of the entire panel (23 out of 57) re-vised their original responses. Therefore, one can say thatactually the critical process was composed of four Panel s DefinitionsForty-four panel members contributed their definitionsand reflections as In computational systems data are the coded invari-ances. In human discourse data are that which is stated, forinstance, by informants in an empirical study. Informationisrelated to meaning or human intention. In computational sys-tems information is the contents of databases, the web, etc. Inhuman discourse systems information is the meaning ofstatements as they are intended by the speaker/writer andunderstood/misunderstood by the listener/reader.

10 Knowl-edgeis embodied in humans as the capacity to understand,explain and negotiate concepts, actions and intentions. [1](Hanne Albrechtsen)Datum is the representation of concepts or other entities, fixedin or on a medium in a form suitable for communication , inter-pretation, or processing by human beings or by automated sys-tems (Wellisch, 1996).Informationis (1) a message used by asender to represent one or more concepts within a communica-tion process, intended to increase knowledge in recipients.(2) A message recorded in the text of a document. Knowledgeis knowing, familiarity gained by experience; person s range ofinformation; a theoretical or practical understanding of; thesum of what is known.