It is argued and demonstrated that Birger Hjørland's critiques of Marcia Bates' articles on the nature of information and the nature of browsing misrepresent the content of these articles, and further, frame the argument as a Manichean conflict between Hjørland's enlightened "discursive" and social approach versus Bates' benighted behavioral approach. It is argued that Bates' work not only contains much of value that has been ignored by Hjørland but also contains ideas that mostly complement, rather than conflict with, those of Hjørland.
Hjørland's Manichean DivideIf one instance constitutes an example, then two instances suggest a trend. Twice now, Birger Hjørland has critiqued my articles, first those relating to the concept of information (Bates, 2005a(Bates, , 2006(Bates, , 2008Hjørland, 2007Hjørland, , 2009, and second, regarding my article on browsing (Bates, 2007b, Hjørland, 2011. In both cases, he has set up a Manichean opposition between key ideas in my work and his. Apparently, from his standpoint, if his ideas have value then mine cannot; the two perspectives stand in inalterable opposition to each other. In his view, his ideas represent the light, and mine are misguided, lost in the darkness.In this article, I wish to demonstrate how much Hjørland has misconstrued my work and encouraged his readers to reject my ideas based, in part, on what he has misrepresented or misunderstood about those ideas in his work. Only some of the more significant misconstructions will be addressed. In the end, the best source of understanding about my articles is to read the articles themselves-without bias or preconceptions. It would be hard to exaggerate how inaccurate this representation of my ideas was in this abstract (and in the rest of the article). For example, I do not believe that information is a thing or a substance-quite the contrary-and never wrote about it that way, and I did write about semiotic aspects of information. A much fuller commentary on Hjørland's article is provided in Bates (2008). Here, however, attention is drawn to the other main characteristic of his discussion of my work: Hjørland's persistent pattern of seeing Manichean contrasts between his work and mine (whether he represents my work accurately or inaccurately).In the case of the information articles, he insistently portrayed my definition as a hard contrast with his, and claimed that my definition was of information as "objective" and his as "subjective." As I noted in Bates (2008):Hjørland seems unwilling to countenance the possibility, expounded in my articles, that information, differences, in the universe can exist in some objective sense while at the same time, we humans observe those differences according to our own subjective perspective, whether that of an individual with numerous idiosyncrasies or as a member of an intellectual community that approaches those differences out of a specific conceptual paradigm. (p. 843) This is not to say that there are no real differences between his and my approaches; there certainly are. B...