College and Research Libraries IRVING M. KLEMPNER A Unified Curriculuin for lnforination Science Discussions relating to the identification of courses and the develop- ment of curricula for the information science field cannot yield mean- ingful results unless the conceptual framework of the field is first de- limited and its basic segments defined. Starting with the current ASIS definition of information science, an analysis is made of the rationale of current thinking relevant to the conceptual boundaries and intel- lectual content of the field. Information science is analyzed to be com- prised of the segments of: 1) Conceptualization, 2) Storage/Transmis- sion, and 3) Utilization. Two of the segments are shown to be based on subfective notions which can be investigated, for the most part, through the employment of statistical and normative survey method- ology. One of the segments is shown to be susceptible to the applica- tion of rigorous research methodology capable of yielding · adequate empirical proof. Since all three segments form integral parts of the field, they need to be fully represented in the information science cur- riculum. THERE HAVE BEEN numerous opportu- nities to read and hear papers address- ing themselves to problems relevant to the development of information science curricula. However, it is essential for all to reconsider the fundamental notions in- herent in the definition of our occupa- tional field. Discussions relating to cur- ricula development, course identification, and similar topics will lead nowhere un- less we can first delimit and define the basic boundaries and segments of our field. Such delimitation might well begin with the current definition of informa- Dr. Klempner is Associate Professor of Library Science in the State University of New York at Albany. This paper was pre- sented at the Curriculum Committee Workshop, American Society for Infor1TUl- tion Science, September 25-29, 1968, at the University of Pittsburgh. tion science, as publicized and dissemi- nated by the President of ASIS (see Robert Taylor's letter of December 1, 1967, addressed to the entire member- ship of the American Society for Infor- mation Science) and which, with slight revision, has been printed and distribut- ed in ASIS brochures. "As a discipline," reads the definition, ccinformation science investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces governing the transfer process, and the technology necessary to process information for optimum accessibility and use." The ASIS definition further elaborates that, as an interdisciplinary field, information science is "derived from or related to mathematics, logic, linguis- tics, psychology, computer technology, operations research, librarianship, the graphic arts, communications, manage- ment, and similar fields" (emphasis sup- plied). /335 336 I College & Research Libraries • July 1969 Quite obviously, as an interdiscipli- nary field, information science seems to have few limitations. Is information sci- ence then a discipline? Is information science then .a science? At conferences held at the Georgia Institute of Tech- nology in 1961 and 1962, information sci- ence was, indeed, defined as "the sci- ence that investigates the properties and behavior of information, the forces gov- erning the flow of information, and the means of processing information for op- timum accessibility and usability."1 The terms properties and behavior of information, forces governing the trans- fer process, forces governing the flow of information, technology necessary, or means necessary to process information are frequently present in most defini- tions of information science. What is it that we mean when we say that we are going to investigate the properties and behavior of information? Does informa- tion have properties? What is informa- tion? What is it that we are studying? Is information some elemental essence which, to use one published allusion,2 can be squeezed out of recorded dis- course like water from a sponge? Having achieved this miracle, do we then but- ton-up our laboratory coats, arrange the pipettes, retrieve our Bunsen burners and start studying the properties of in- formation? Can information be separat- ed from recorded discourse, i.e., from documents, from librarianship or, for that matter, from the subjective and, consequently, continuously changing judgments of human beings? In a paper initially presented at the 1967 ADI annual meeting, Frederick B. Thompson eloquently developed the view that "the organization is the infor- 1 Conference on Training Information Specialists, Georgia Institute of Technology, October 1961 and April 1962. Proceedings. p. 115. 2 Robert A. Fairthome, •• •use and Mention' in the Information Sciences," .in Symposium on Education for Information Science, Warrenton, Virginia, September 7-10, 1965. Proceedings (Washington, D .C.: Spartan Books, 1965), p. 10. mation."3 This view, it might seem, can be expanded to mean that the product of conceptualization is information. Web- ster defined ''conceptualization» as "the act or process of interpreting a mental image of an action or thing,» and the term "concepf' was defined as "the men- tal image formed by generalization from particulars." When we engage in the process of conceptualization, we are in essence carrying out a subjective process. What we are doing is selecting and or- ganizing particular elements out of our current experience and linking these ele- ments with others that are distant in time and space. It is only after this proc- ess of imposing organization, of concept- ualizing what at first were bits and pieces of unrelated data, that we feel in- formed. The resultant concept or con- cepts may be subject to additional analy- sis and empirical proof and may, or may not, fit into accepted scientific or human- istic theory. Notwithstanding the degree of objec- tivity of the resultant concept or pattern of concepts, the fact remains that the process of conceptualization is a subjec- tive process and that the product of this subjective process, an abstraction de- rived from the subjective selection and imposition of organization, certainly ought not to be evaluated by the infor- mation scientist for its degree of objec- tivity. Perhaps this is what Yovits and Ernst had in mind when they stated that "information is a relative quantity and cannot be defined except in terms of a specific situation with a specific set of observable .actions."4 Thus, when we say that as a discipline, "information sci- ence investigates the properties and be- havior of information and the forces gov- 3 Frederick B. Thompson, "The Organization Is the Information," American Documentation, XIX (July 1968 ), 305-308. 4 M. C. Yovits and R. L. Ernst, Generalized Informa- tion Systems: Some Consequences of Information Transfer (Columbus, Ohio: Department of Computer and Information Science, Ohio State University, Sep- t ember 15, 1968 ), p. 19. Unified Curriculum for Information Science I 331 eming the transfer process," -which properties, what behavior, which forces are we investigating? Are we investigat- ing physical properties?-physical be- havior?-physical forces? Can we formu- late universal laws based on subjective interpretation of data and unique per- sonal experience? THE CoNCEPTUALIZA noN SEGMENT It is essential for us to recognize . and accept the conclusion that at least one segment of information science, that seg- ment which is here being labeled the Conceptualization Segment, is based on subjective notions. It entails what in Rang ana than's terminology may be de- scribed as the entering of the idea plane; it calls for the creation of a class, the es- tablishment of relationships between the newly conceptualized class with what, in man's subjective judgment, comprises the totality of his universe. As informa- tion scientists, a·s librarians, as classifica- tionists, as information specialists, we have .a direct interest in the process of conceptualization. It is incumbent upon us to study this process and apply it in our own field. Activities in information science employing the conceptualization process may be said to include: index- ing, abstracting, classification, thesauri- building, subject-heading-work, docu- ment selection, development of interest profiles, and a number of other similar activities. In .a very real sense, informa- tion science activities making use of the conceptualization process encompass and represent some of the major intel- lectual contributions to the field. We can seek to study and analyze the process of conceptualization; we can seek to apply this process to the field of information science; we can develop adequate curricula to cover the Con- ceptualization Segment of the informa- tion science field. However, we cannot undertake to evaluate the degree of ob- jectivity of concepts stemming from the application of this subjective process in other disciplines. Concepts are frequent- ly verbalized, they are represented in some notational system and are record- ed in some manner for storage and trans- mission in the form of symbols and sig- nals. It must be reiterated, however, that when we are investigating the concept- ual attributes of the interpretation of symbols and signals, whether conceptu- alized, coded, and transmitted by infor- mation scientists or by others, we are dealing with (