Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Källkritik, kognitiv auktoritet och domänanalys: Värdering av trovärdighet
University of Borås, Swedish School of Library and Information Science.
2005 (Swedish)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year))Student thesisAlternative title
Source-criticism, cognitive authority and domain analysis : Evaluation of credibility (English)
Abstract [en]

The object of this explorative theoretical study is to compare similarities in three perspectives for evaluation of credibility. The perspectives are the historical method source-criticism, cognitive authority and domain analysis. These perspectives, regarded as intellectual tools for critical thinking in a process of information seeking, by asking questions about credibility related to the social and theoretical context of the intellectual background, can give support in articulating which documents that gives a specific and essential answer to a question. In this sense credibility is seen as a qualitative aspect of relevance. Patrick Wilson argues that we can attain some critical independence towards cognitive authorities and the literature by investigating the social and theoretical topography of a field. Birger Hjørlands domain analysis, I argue, is a more systematic way to pose these kinds of questions. Source-criticism has in the examples investigated here the historians Lauritz and Curt Weibull in the 1910s and Rolf Torstendahl in the 1960s mostly been used for empirical proof of true or correct statements, but it also addresses questions of credibility. A source is related to a question with theoretical connotations. Both source-criticism and domain analysis can articulate these connotations by shedding light on aspects of the intellectual background. Taken together in a comparative and rhetorical approach these perspectives can articulate reasons for judgement of which documents that contains credible knowledge. Source-criticism is suitable for handling specific and empirical aspects of credibility, cognitive authority connects aspects of status and relevance to social practice and domain analysis can give orientation on different theoretical positions within a knowledge domain.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
University College of Borås. Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS) , 2005.
Series
Magisteruppsats i biblioteks- och informationsvetenskap vid Bibliotekshögskolan/Biblioteks- och informationsvetenskap, ISSN 1404-0891 ; 2005:104
Keywords [en]
library and information science
Keywords [sv]
biblioteks- och informationsvetenskap
National Category
Social Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-17840Local ID: 2320/1385OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hb-17840DiVA, id: diva2:1309753
Note
Uppsatsnivå: DAvailable from: 2019-04-30 Created: 2019-04-30

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(292 kB)99 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 292 kBChecksum SHA-512
392996787c13ae631b33918ada192f7fc377ac977903aeb04ca20adc91b0e317b0583e4cab3f1b009dc3299162c68e5cbd9bd7f9a97d05f4b70b3d939bcb7b70
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Swedish School of Library and Information Science
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 99 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 26 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf