A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition. / Hjørland, Birger.
In: Information Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, colis1628.html , 24.03.2017.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition
AU - Hjørland, Birger
N1 - Conference code: 9
PY - 2017/3/24
Y1 - 2017/3/24
N2 - Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen’s arguments and finds that Nicolaisen has failed to consider the differences between defining the concept of relevance and the measurement instances of it. His arguments are, therefore, misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems as discussed by Nicolaisen are important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. As a result, it is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and it is the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far.
AB - Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen’s arguments and finds that Nicolaisen has failed to consider the differences between defining the concept of relevance and the measurement instances of it. His arguments are, therefore, misdirected and irrelevant. The epistemological problems as discussed by Nicolaisen are important, but not in relation to the task of defining the concept of relevance. Furthermore, his “refutation” resembles the well-known mythical “proof” that bumblebees cannot fly. As a result, it is concluded that the relevance definition under discussion is still valid and it is the most fruitful one that has been suggested so far.
M3 - Journal article
VL - 22
JO - Information Research
JF - Information Research
SN - 1368-1613
IS - 1
M1 - colis1628.html
Y2 - 26 June 2016 through 29 June 2016
ER -
ID: 174512702