Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Domain Analysis/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Domain Analysis

Domain analysis is the socio-cognitive research programme proposed by Birger Hjørland and Hanne Albrechtsen in 1995, which holds that the most fruitful object of study for information science is the knowledge domain understood as a discourse or thought community within society's division of labour. Rather than grounding information organization in the isolated mental processes of an individual user, domain analysis grounds it in the shared literature, paradigms, terminology, and social practices of a subject field. Hjørland and Albrechtsen set out eleven complementary approaches — from producing literature guides and special classifications to bibliometric, historical, and epistemological study — and Clare Beghtol's work on literary warrant and consensus showed how a domain's own published discourse supplies the empirical basis for its categories. The method turns the design of classifications, thesauri, and retrieval systems into an evidence-based study of how a community actually thinks and writes.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Domain Analysis (Knowledge-Domain Study of Discourse Communities)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / library-information-science
  • Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a new horizon in information science: Domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425. · DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199507)46:6<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  • Beghtol, C. (1995). Domain analysis, literary warrant, and consensus: The case of fiction studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(1), 30-44. · DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199501)46:1<30::AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-F
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Same method familyFacet Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Taxonomic bucketKnowledge Organization System Designmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Taxonomic bucketLiterary Warrant Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto