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

Hjørland, B 2017, 'A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition', Information Research, vol. 22, no. 1, colis1628.html . <http://InformationR.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1628.html>

APA

Hjørland, B. (2017). A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition. Information Research, 22(1), [colis1628.html ]. http://InformationR.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1628.html

Vancouver

Hjørland B. A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition. Information Research. 2017 Mar 24;22(1). colis1628.html .

Author

Hjørland, Birger. / A rejoinder to Nicolaisen’s refutation of Hjørland’s relevance definition. In: Information Research. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 1.

Bibtex

@article{cc9d502126a54657a53b058627a45cb6,
title = "A rejoinder to Nicolaisen{\textquoteright}s refutation of Hj{\o}rland{\textquoteright}s relevance definition",
abstract = "Dr. Nicolaisen (2016) has claimed a refutation of the definition of relevance as provided by the present author. This present paper examines Nicolaisen{\textquoteright}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. ",
author = "Birger Hj{\o}rland",
note = "Er publiceret i {"}Information Research, an international electronic journal{"}; null ; Conference date: 26-06-2016 Through 29-06-2016",
year = "2017",
month = mar,
day = "24",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
journal = "Information Research",
issn = "1368-1613",
publisher = "University of Sheffield Department of Information Studies",
number = "1",

}

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