Gurvirender Tejay
01/27/04
INFO 790 Doctoral Seminar
Theory of Information
What is Information?
What seems to be a simplistic question turns out to be a rather complex issue within 15
seconds of trying to answer the question. It seems that everyone around me including
myself have been using this word without actually familiarizing ourselves with what it
actually means or stands for. This question extols a reaction akin to that of deer caught in
front of beam of headlights. Suddenly it seems that the mind indeed is an empty slate.
This question has been debated by many a prominent thinkers and crops up the moment
we try to understand or question about knowledge and experience. Still there is no unified
consensus on what is information. It has been further complicated by the advent of
information age.
Checkland and Howell (1998:96) define information as structured data which have
contextual meaning. This context may be any or all of cognitive, spatial and temporal.
The above definition seems to be developed on Avison and Fitzgerald’s (1995) definition
of information that has also been quoted by Checkland and Howell (1998).
Information has a meaning…(it) comes from selectind data, summarizing it and
presenting it in such a way that it is useful to the recipient. (Avison and Fitzgerald,
1995:12, as quoted in Checkland and Howell, 1998:95)
Checkland and Howell (1998:89) link the concept of information to data, capta and
knowledge. According to them, data is the mass of facts and capta is the selected or
created facts that are collected because of their relevance to us. Further,
This process…by which data is selected and converted into meaningful information,
can itself lead to larger structures of related information…knowledge. Checkland
and Howell (1998:90)
Checkland and Howell (1998:90) provide the link between data, capta, information and
knowledge.
Facts (Data)  Selected or created facts (Capta)  meaningful facts (Information) 
larger, longer-living structures of meaningful facts (knowledge).
Broadly speaking, the information is the selected data (or capta) to which meaning has
been attributed in a particular context. Liebenau and Backhouse (1990) state
[I]nformation cannot exist independently of the receiving person who gives it
meaning and somehow acts upon it…information is data arranged in a meaningful
way for some perceived purpose. (Liebenau and Backhouse, 1990:3)
Boland (1987) introduces community as an important component in the concept of
information.
1
Gurvirender Tejay
01/27/04
…perfect information does not exist as an object, and intelligence does not exist,
except as it is embodied in a human being. Information is not a resource to be
stockpiled as one or more factor of production. It is meaning and can only be
achieved through dialogue in a human community. Information is not a commodity.
It is a skilled human accomplishment. (Boland, 1987:377)
Meaning is appropriated when we draw from our stock of knowledge and apply
understanding to information. According to Boland, this stock of knowledge is formed
through community. So, where does intelligence or competence fit-in in the broad
schema as presented by Checkland and Howell, and Boland?
Alexander (2002), in his thesis work, provides the definition of information from the
objective, subjective, and intersubjective point of view. Objective view considers
meaning in information as fixed and not open to interpretation. Subjective view
subscribes to attributing meaning to data in a particular context as information. Aspects
of shared meaning and discourse are characteristic of intersubjective point of view.
According to this view, preconceptions plus information = interpretation  knowledge
(Alexander, 2002:67). Alexander (2002:67) further distinguishes information into four
levels: lean information, rich information, appropriated information, and tacit
information. The lean information is the data (or capta) which has been processed
electronically, reformatted and made available to someone who is expected to find it
meaningful and useful (and may act on it). It has limited readership and a short useful
life. In rich information, information has been put in context and is in an artifact form. It
is still capta as it is external to human mind. Rich information intends to initiate thought
and to influence the reader by altering his lifeworld. It has a wider readership and a
longer period of relevance. Appropriated information involves attribution of meaning.
The user or acquirer of information restructures the information and associates it with
other personal beliefs, values and knowledge. The information becomes personal and has
meaning; as such it cannot be transferred. Tacit information is usually imparted by
demonstrating it and by the recipient learning by trial and error or practicing the skill
(Alexander, 2002:71). Alexander arrives at the notion of information as carrying
meaning. But this meaning is accessible in the form of appropriated and tacit information,
and can only be communicated as lean or rich information.
Pesce (1999) provides a simple and succinct view on information. Pesce differentiates
information and meaning as ‘within’ and ‘without.’ Information is only located outside
the skin, and meaning only inside the emergent space – Mind (Persche, 1999). According
to Persche, we are not part of the world of information; our being can only grasp the
intangibility of meaning. In exchange of information, the communication passage
between two individuals entails the passage from the world of meaning, out into the
universe of information, and finally back into the world of meaning. This view further is
further exemplified by Stonier
Information exists. It does not need to be perceived to exist. It does not need to be
understood to exist. It requires no intelligence to interpret it. It does not have to
have meaning to exist. It exists. (Stonier, Webster:27, as quoted in Wagner, 7)
2
Gurvirender Tejay
01/27/04
Continuing on the same view, Miller (2002) considers information as a vehicle by which
to provoke – or evoke – a human response. Miller considers information to be
intrinsically meaningless on its own. According to Miller information simply exists,
waiting to be interpreted and have meaning attached by people. Information certainly
stands for meaning, it is never meaning itself (Mackay, 1998). For Miller, knowledge is
what we know. Information becomes knowledge at the moment of its interpretation. This
in itself does not seem to be so convincing. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) has stated the
following in relation to knowledge
…information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is created by that very
flow of information anchored in the beliefs and commitment of its holder. This
…emphasizes that knowledge is essentially related to human action.
Miller’s view on knowledge seems to make sense in the view of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s
statement.
It seems to me that the different views about information discussed here point to the same
basic concept.
Data  Information  Knowledge
But, each one is discussing these concepts at different levels. Or, they are using different
terms or words to convey the same underlying concept. Knowledge is derived from
information that is further derived from data. These three terms, namely data,
information, knowledge, can be considered as major pillars. We can have other smaller
structures to enhance (or explain) or support the major pillars. Checkland and Howell
(1998) address this concern in terms of Popper’s advice (1972):
One should never quarrel about words, and never get involved in questions of
terminology…What we are really interested in, our real problems, …are problems
of theories and their truth. (Popper, 1972:310)
I would take the help of words to express my concerns regarding the information and
meaning. My concern is with what we mean by meaningful information. The existence of
meaningful information implies that there might be information which is not meaningful
(or meaningless) to us. Now, how can information be meaningless when information is
obtained (or created) by appropriating meaning to data? Secondly, if information derived
by appropriating meaning to data the term ‘meaningful information’ becomes redundant.
Further, meaningless information implies that there could be information (or information
can exist) without us (that is not meaningful to us). This means that information can exist
without the meaning. Or, it is not important to have context for information to be
constructed. This leads to the argument that information can exist on its own and has no
intrinsic meaning involved. Thus, we have traveled a full circle and are back to Miller’s
argument. This also leads us to the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency (as per the
discussion with Gordon Hunter). Finally, this further leads us to the basic question of
knowledge, competence and intelligence.
3
Gurvirender Tejay
01/27/04
References
Alexander, P.M. (2002). “Toward reconstructing meaning when text is communicated
electronically.” Thesis work at University of Pretoria.
Avison, D.E., and Fitzgerald, G. (1995). “The field of IST.” Private communication to
Peter Checkland.
Boland, R.J. (1987). “The In-formation of Information Systems” In Boland, R.J. &
Hirschheim, r. (Eds, Critical Issues in Information Systems Research. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P., and Howell, S. (1998). Information, systems, and Information Systems –
making sense of the field. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Liebenau, J., and Backhouse, J. (1990). Understanding Information: An Introsuction.
Basingtoke: Macmillan.
Mackay, H. (1998). The Good Listener. Sydney: Pan Macmillan.
Miller, F.J. (2002). “I = 0 (Information has no meaning).” Information Research, 8(1).
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pesche, M. (1999). “Boundary Bath.” Presented at SCOPE1 workshop, Vienna.
Popper, K.R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach. London: Oxford
University Press.
Wagner, E. “Information, hyper-reality and the meaning of gap: A study into loss of
meaning through an analysis of the Internet poetry community.” Thesis work.
4