What ICT4D and information management researchers can learn from Paul Otlet’s notion of development

Abstract

While expansive literature of information-related fields presents Paul Otlet (1868-1944) as one of the founders and prolific writers of information research, it displays a lean coverage of Otlet’s works. Indeed, despite his reflections on information and technology as a conduit of human development, Otlet tends to be caricatured with the concept document and related subjects such as book, library, bibliography, etc. One of the reasons for this shortcoming is that development represents one of the least researched themes of information studies on the one hand and of information and communication technology for development [ICT4D] on the other. It follows that, although integral to human actualization, development is seen as alien to or unfit for information-related fields. Another consequence is that development is taken to mean the development of and access to information technologies. Applying qualitative content analysis, the present paper canvasses Otlet’s works, and features the notion of development. Otlet saw information as a service toward people’s development. For him, people’s development implies the totality and expansion of human life. The paper captures some of the salient themes under which Otlet approached development. The goal is to bring to the forefront of information research, the development, not just of information systems and forums, but also that of people.

Keywords

human development information development Paul Otlet

Paul Otlet took information to be the toolkit of people’s development but his works on social issues remain under-researched or ignored.

Introduction

Notwithstanding the alarming rates of inequality arising between and within developed and developing countries, development figures among the least investigated topics of ICT4D and information management. In effect, the dearth of theorization regarding the concept of development has caused several authors to raise concerns over ICT4D and information management. For example, Avgerou (2010) deplored “ICTD research, despite its remarkable theoretical capabilities to study technology innovation in relation to socioeconomic context, remains weak in forming convincing arguments about IT-enabled socioeconomic development” (p. 1). From a slightly different viewpoint, Toyama (2010), a leading author in the ICT4D field remarked, “yet the successes of ICT4D are few, fleeting, and very far between” (p. 14; see also Heeks, 2012, p. 340). No sooner than 5 years after his remark, Toyama (2015) observed, “so during a golden age of innovation in the world’s most technologically advanced country [the United States], there has been no dent in our rate of poverty. All our amazing digital technologies, widely disseminated, didn’t alleviate our most glaring social ill” (pp. x-xi). The cornucopia of published works in ICT4D and information studies in the last few decades did not help to reverse or shed light on this corrosive phenomenon of present day societies. The phenomenon reflects “ICT4D’s inability to really speak the language of development: not just saying the words but grasping the underlying meaning and grammar by fully understanding development concepts and discourse” (Heeks, 2014a: 18). To repair this failing of ICT4D research, it was proposed that there “be greater opportunities for ICTs to be a technology of poverty eradication rather than a technology of inequality” (Heeks, 2014c: 29). Not surprisingly, Paul Otlet is one modern day author not mentioned in works on ICT4D and information management. Yet Otlet suggested, for example, that technology be a liberator of humans.

ICT4D and information research authors tend to eschew the debates of people’s development, and leave them to the discretion of those preoccupied with humanitarian and/or disaster-driven research and activities. It can be said that most ICT4D research clusters around the development of information systems, alongside ideas such as bandwidth, high-speed connectivity, low-energy devices, etc. It can also be said that information research revolves around access to information technologies, with ideas such as social networks, social capital, privacy, usability, open source, intellectual property, etc. Research into people’s development and the authors that reflect on it gain little traction in information studies and ICT4D. In detail, the reasons for this oversight can be captured at two levels: technology and the computer; and economics and corporates.

First, one reason for the oversight of the concept of development in ICT4D might be, to use a preferred expression of Toyama (2015), the “technoholic” (p. xiii) tendency in looking at ICTs. Put crudely, Heeks (2012) spoke of “technocentricity… as a problematic theme in ICT4D” (p. 340). In information research, too, the dominance of computer science might be the reason for the neglect of development discussions, resulting in a focus on information technologies and their usability. Techno-determinism simply implies that the development of humans is determined solely by that of technologies and related systems. Therefore, for information-related fields, what is relevant in Otlet’s writings are the reflections made on the document, and nothing more. As Hjørland (2014) reminded us, “information science is sometimes confused with IT [information technology] and with computer science and is seen by some people as being primarily about IT and computers” (p. 213). In computer science logic, debates of (access to) ICTs tend to coalesce around the functionality or usability of systems (see Fuchs, 2013) or a “systems driven paradigm” (Hjørland, 2014: 214). It follows that, as Chowdhury (2012) lamented, “to date very little research has taken place on information and sustainable development in general” (p. 633; see also Nolin, 2010). Even in the field of development studies, the connection of information with development remains a tangentially addressed topic. Chowdhury (2012) explained, “the importance of information has been ignored or downplayed in key policy documents on sustainable development, and within mainstream information science (IS) the issue of sustainable information has not been discussed or researched well” (p. 634). It is inexplicable that a field versed in the specialty of information might be uninformative when it comes to the links and implications of information with development.

Another explanation why development is disregarded by information studies is that “many studies have considered information in the sense of a product” (Starasts, 2015: 157). Thus, information is simply something to develop and have access to. Perhaps the lack of a universally adopted definition of ‘development’ might be the reason why ICT4D and information management authors are reluctant to engage with development. But, neither are there universally agreed definitions of ‘technology’ and ‘computer’, and yet these two terms have received most attention in ICT4D and information management. For example, the insistence on or research into “access to ICTs’ (Diga, 2013b: 142) has been receiving extensive coverage. As it should now be clear, the connection between information technology and development warrants in-depth inquiry.

Describing the current state of knowledge in ICT4D, Walsham (2013) pointed out, “although the word development is included as one of the keywords in the title of our field, its meaning is less clear than the ICT part” (p. 49; see also Heeks, 2014a: 1). Such a limitation leaves ICT4D readers with poor engagement with and knowledge of people’s development. Speaking of ICT4D research papers, for example, Walsham (2013) clarified:

Papers [of ICT4D research] did not normally theorize development in any specific way or indeed refer to the term directly… Perhaps we should require all papers submitted to subsequent ICTD events to make some explicit reference to development and their theorization of it. We would be dismissive of any paper submitted to an ICTD conference that largely ignored the ICT part, so why not the same treatment for the D part? (p. 50)

The above statement confirms the goal of the present paper to advocate for an engagement with the idea of development within information-related fields, and Otlet’s reflections are presented as a way forward. The paper also confirms the concern raised by Heeks (2014a), which “recognises the need for practice to break out of the ‘ICT4D bubble’ and engage more with the development mainstream” (p. 1).

The second level, after technology or computers, is that of economics or corporates. A great portion of ICT4D and information management literature has been devoted to themes such as “information about market prices” (Diga, 2013b: 143), “income” (Diga, 2013a: 117), “micro-entrepreneurs’ use of ICTs” (Diga, 2013b: 156), etc. While these and similar themes may be used as measurements of development, they are nothing short of econometric parameters, and thus do not provide an in-depth look into people’s development. The point being, ICT4D “demand is shaped by a complex mix of social, emotional and economic factors poorly captured by standard information systems models [emphasis added]” (Heeks, 2012: 340). In much clearer terms, Chaudhuri (2012) noted, “the more universal and context-neutral the [ICT4D] service, the higher the [funding] priority that should be accorded it… The incommensurately large number of failures highlights the pitfalls of ignoring these few basic principles” (p. 334). In information management, Avgerou (2008) observed, “the transformative discourse [of development], while I believe is discernible by the careful reader, has not attracted much attention in analyses of the field” (p. 136). The economic/business trend is also seen in information studies. Hjørland (2014) stated, “just because such a [business/economic] label is not unique for LIS [Library and Information Science], it should not be viewed as an acceptable or desirable position in which to be. A greater amount of theoretical coherence seems necessary if our field [information studies] is going to survive” (p. 230). The exposé of Otlet’s works proposed by this paper is an attempt to enrich the theoretical arsenal of information management and ICT4D. Above all, Chaudhuri (2012) indicated, “whether or not ICT4D schemes actually yield development in human terms, the vendors [sponsors] profit from the sale of their products and services” (p. 327). This paper seeks to provide Otlet’s reflections/insights as a knowledge base that can be used to offset the dominance of the sponsors’ agenda.

While development tends to be seen in most information-related fields as a vague and remote concept, it is an everyday concern of humans in both developing and developed countries. One of the best ways to think of development is with the ideas of inequality, poverty, racism, and the like. These and similar ideas find a persistent echo throughout Otlet’s works. By rescuing Otlet from a bibliography-confined characterization found in information studies (detail below), this paper targets authors interested in or engaged with social topics and information.

Two primary reasons have led to the writing of the present paper. First, the notion of development evokes a specific and often pejorative connotation, depending on a person’s awareness. Development is usually regarded as something alien to and distant from information-related fields and their activities. Such a conception bespeaks the system-centric movement seen in information-related fields (Bates and Maack, 2010; Buckland, 2012a; Hjørland, 2014; Saracevic, 2010a, 2010b; Wilson, 2010). Suffice it to say that development is proclaimed by the UN as a fundamental right involving all spheres of human existence. The second reason, related to the first, is the fossilization of Otlet’s works. Despite increasing publications on Otlet (Laqua, 2013; Van Acker, Uyttenhove and Van Peteghem, 2014; Wright, 2014a, 2014b), the range and depth of his works are being fossilized in the accounts of document and bibliography. It can be argued that Otlet’s works are not fully developed, and therefore do not deserve further inquiry. But so are the works of many, if not all, exemplars of past centuries. Even when these exemplars are believed to have left us with full-blown treatises, the depth and value of the treatises do not lie in the quantity of work produced, but in very few, or often a single statement that an author is celebrated for. For a long time, authors in information-related fields have failed do justice to the range and depth of Otlet’s works. This paper seeks to de-stigmatize these works.

Broadening the reader’s views on Otlet only responds to the nature and scope of information and development. Indeed, there is a steady consensus among authors that “information is an intrinsic part of [all] the human condition” (Spink and Heinström, 2012b:, see also Brookes, 1980: 126; Wilson, 2000: 49). But in information research the acclaimed ubiquity of information has been supplanted by debates focused on information behavior or usability (see Case, 2012; Spink and Heinström, 2012a, 2012b), with little to no attention to the development of humans. It follows that the connection of information with development, as seen in Otlet’s works, becomes all the more relevant. One of the drives that caused Otlet to reflect on development was war, or, more precisely, World War I and the subsequent need for reconstruction.

After the introduction, this paper is organized in the following sections: (1) problem statement, (2) clarification of terminology, (3) biography and context, (4) literature review, (5) method, and (6) discussion. Lastly, the paper provides a conclusion.

Problem statement

Otlet’s oeuvre partakes of several social topics worthy of sustained inquiry. But for better or worse, Otlet is known to English academia through the field of information studies, where he is often listed in and limited to histories of information studies under the umbrella term bibliography or document (Hellemans, 1996, 2006; Otlet, 1934; Rayward, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1990, 1997, 2014a, 2014b; Rieusset-Lemarié, 1997; Van den Heuvel and Rayward, 2011). This means that a paper about the concept of development through the lens of Otlet may come as a surprise or a renewal to information authors familiar with Otlet à la document. The reason being, as shown above, that development is a concept unexplored in information fields. It is not uncommon to see the legacy of Otlet being under-appreciated. Cronin (2012) wrote, “seminal influences include Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine in Belgium, whose visionary conceptualizations and experimentation… have had a lasting, if at times under-appreciated [emphasis added], effect on thinking within the field” of information research. Recently, Manfroid, Gillen, and Phillips-Batoma (2013) corroborated this remark, saying, “after his death, the problematic conditions in which Otlet’s personal papers and the collections he had created were preserved meant that his thought and work remained largely unacknowledged [emphasis added]” (p. 312). As this paper was being prepared, an information research commentator, arguably familiar with Otlet, pointed out that he had read a lot about Otlet, but did not recall any place where Otlet talked about development. He also commented that development does not fall within the province of information studies. Such a characterization of Otlet and of development – not untypical of information studies – only puts to rest several of Otlet’s works, and thus constitutes a disservice to the impact and advancement of knowledge in information scholarship and our world. Several reviews (Cibangu, 2013a, 2013b; Hjørland, 2014; Day, 2010; Spink and Heinström, 2011, 2012a) show that the field of information studies displays a lean coverage of social theorists. The same is true of ICT4D (see Tayoma, 2015; Walsham, 2013), where there is a growing need for “a reorientation of ICT4D’s scope, language and worldview” (Heeks, 2014a: 1). A casual look into Otlet’s unpublished writings, however, reveals a wealth of research interests.

In a pertinent historical description, Manfroid, Gillen, and Phillips-Batoma (2013) elaborated, “suffice it to say that the legacy of the archival materials that have come down to us from Otlet and La Fontaine… has helped scholars to throw a new light on many subjects of interest” (p. 324). These research interests include: war, peace, violence, unemployment, urbanism, culture, trade, behavior, media, armed conflict, education, policy, property, etc. Development, or people’s wellbeing, stands out as one of the daunting themes of Otlet. Moreover, the need for ICT4D and information management authors to be anchored on firmer theoretical ground and engage with development in “a world of … growing inequality” (Heeks, 2014b: 33) renders invaluable exposure to a social thinker as vocal as Otlet. This paper aims to examine the concept wellbeing from the perspective of information-related fields, with a view on Otlet’s works. The ideas discussed by or gleaned from Otlet are a small contribution that this paper makes to remedy ICT4D’s “lack of conceptual foundation” (Heeks, 2014c: 1), information management inattention to development (see Avgerou, 2008: 136), and LIS authors’ inability “to find useful knowledge within LIS” (Hjørland, 2014: 230). Using an untapped social thinker from within the information-related fields, this paper seeks to eradicate the disconnect between information research and development.

Clarification of terminology

Two terms are essential to this paper: ‘development’ and ‘information management’.

Although development is one of the most pressing topics of our times, it has come to mean different things for different people depending on their situations and locations. The English word development comes from the French word développer, which has two particles de-velop, meaning to unfold, unwrap, unroll, expand, spread out, etc. Social science literature shows four major trails of meanings ascribed to development: (1) psychological, which represents the unfolding of human personality (Greve, 2001; Harris and Butterworth, 2002; Kalsched, 2013; Lerner, 2001; Thornton, 2008); (2) philanthropic, the most common in information management or science and related fields, which entails humanitarian or small-scale managerial works in rural or poor areas of developing nations (Clark, 2006, 2007; Duncombe, 2012a, 2012b; Heeks, 2007; Heeks, Subramanian and Jones, 2013; Mohan, 2008; Thirlwall, 2008; Unwin, 2009); (3) infrastructural, which involves facilities, houses, transportation structures, energy, water supply, etc. (Adams and Tiesdell, 2012; Perry, 2001); and (4) economic, which requires specific metrics or statistics, such as GDP, labor, capital, currency, health insurance, etc. (Ashraf, Weil and Wilde, 2013; Henderson, Storeygard and Weil, 2012; Weil, 2012). Nonetheless, recent literature tends to present economic development as an integrated and holistic endeavor (Buenstorf, 2012; Lockner, 2013; Rowe, 2009; Shim, 2010). This paper understands development as an integrated endeavor to unravel or ensure the wellbeing of individuals and their societies. As Currie-Alder, Kanbur, Malone and Medhora (2014) noted, “thinking on development is pulling together, breaking out of disciplinary silos and drawing on ideas, concepts, and theories across the natural and social sciences” (p. 2; see also Giugale, 2014: 1). This understanding of development is important to keep in mind inasmuch as the information research literature emphasizes system- and usability-centric trends of research. Spink and Heinström (2012a) rightfully noted, “the field of information is also being grasped by the technology fields on the one hand and the psychological/behavioural fields on the other” (p. 3). Pertinently, Otlet’s writings reflect a holistic view of wellbeing inasmuch as Otlet concerned himself with virtually every aspect of social reality. This paper uses the words prosperity, development, and wellbeing interchangeably.

The last terms that need clarification are information management and information studies. With “Paul Otlet: [being] the Belgian entrepreneur of knowledge management” (Manfroid, Gillen, and Phillips-Batoma, 2013: 313), the term information management is in order. This paper considers information management and information systems as interchangeable. Taken in its basic acceptation, information management is a well-defined field of business science, which deals with the competitive and productive benefits of information technology within an organization or corporate (Avgerou, 2008; K.C. Laudon and J.P. Laudon, 2014; Rainier and Cegielski, 2012; Rainier and Watson, 2012; Rainier, Watson and Prince, 2013). Put differently, the goal of information management is to maximize the productivity of information (technology) within an organization. This paper takes information management as a subfield of information studies, which focuses on the socio-human aspects of information processes (Bawden and Robinson, 2012; Buckland, 2012a; Davis and Shaw, 2011; Robson and Robinson, 2013; Savolainen, 2013). This does not mean that information management in the business sense is not important, but that the focus lies on information processes and people’s interactions, not on business models, entrepreneurship, managerial leadership, etc. This broad approach to information management is in large part due to the information challenges with which we all continue to be faced in our daily activities. More pertinently, Spink and Heinström (2012a) elucidated, “unfortunately for the field of LIS, information is now everyone’s problem and of greater interest to more scientific fields and in addition, industry and government are looking for information management solutions” (p. 3). Just like information, information management has become everyone’s, every field’s problem.

Biography and context

Paul Marie Ghislain Otlet was born in Brussels to a wealthy family on 23 August 1868 (Blanquet, 2006; Ghils, 2003; Gillen, 2010; Hellemans, 1996, 2006; Levie, 2006; Manfroid, Gillen, and Phillips-Batoma, 2013; Rayward, 1990; Wright, 2014a). His father ran a worldwide tram business that kept the household affluent; he hired private tutors to provide Otlet with primary and middle school education. Otlet attended the upper-class Collège Saint Michel de Bruxelles [Saint Michael High School of Brussels, Belgium]. He studied at the Catholic University of Louvain for a few years, and then went to the Université Libre de Bruxelles [Free University of Brussels], where he obtained his doctoral degree in law in 1890. In 1888, Otlet suggested that Africans be allowed to develop their continent, an indication that people’s wellbeing was an important concern for him. In 1891, Otlet (Blanchemanche, Cassiers, Hallet and Otlet, 1891) undertook the classification and unification of all articles published in law. Shortly afterwards, Otlet abandoned his legal occupation to purse his idea of knowledge unification.

Otlet (1929b, 1934, 1935a) strove to build a tool devoted to the management, dissemination, storage, and retrieval of information across the globe. The idea was to foster the interaction and camaraderie of individuals and nations, and the wellbeing of societies and their members. However, Otlet’s idea met with resistance among public officials in Europe (Gillen, 2010; Levie, 2006; Otlet, 1929b). In 1893(?), Otlet persisted, and, with Henri La Fontaine, created the Institut International de Bibliographie [International Institute of Bibliography] (Hellemans, 1996, 2006; Otlet, 1934; Rayward, 1974, 1975, 1983, 2014a; Rieusset-Lemarié, 1997; Van den Heuvel and Rayward, 2011; Wright, 2014a). In 1895, Otlet wrote an article about involuntary unemployment. In 1914, he laid out the rights of citizens and nations to propose the end of war. In 1916, he outlined global problems and suggestions. In 1919, he suggested the reconstruction of war-rent Europe. In 1926 and 1929a, he raised the idea of global currency and a world bank (see Otlet, 1935a: 445). In 1929b, he described the work of information services. As can be seen, Otlet was involved in various spheres of social reality, such as jobs, human rights, the global economy, peace, etc. And he viewed information as a service toward people’s wellbeing. These and many concepts set him apart from Henri La Fontaine, his friend, with whom he tends to be reduced by authors of information studies (details below). Otlet died on December 10, 1944, in Brussels (Hellemans, 2006; Manfroid, Gillen and Phillips-Batoma, 2013).

More than half a century after Otlet’s death, his wide-ranging thoughts have yet to wend their ways through the fields of ICT4D and information management. The field of information studies was formally established after World War II (Bates and Maack, 2010; Buckland, 2012a; Saracevic, 2010a, 2010b; Wilson, 2010). But only in the 1990s did Otlet receive some, if any, attention from English-speaking information scientists (see Buckland and Hahn, 1997: 285). The belated presentation of Otlet has left many authors and readers of information studies with little to no knowledge of his oeuvre. The field of ICT4D was formally created in the late 1990s (Cibangu, 2015; Fuchs, 2013), and Otlet’s works have yet to enter ICT4D debates. At the same time, development is becoming one of the stickiest challenges of our information-swamped world.

Four most important factors explain why Otlet’s works have been receiving little coverage and interest. First, most of Otlet’s works remain largely un-translated and unknown in English literature and academia. In the meantime, the Revue de Bibliologie, published by L’Harmattan press in Paris (http://www.enssib.fr/revue/revue-de-bibliologie-schema-et-schematisation), Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France, published by the University of Lyon in Lyon, France (http://bbf.enssib.fr/) and the Cahiers de la Documentation, published by the Belgian Association of Documentation (http://www.abd-bvd.be/index.php?page=cah/cahdoc-fr), offer extensive coverage of Paul Otlet. It is questionable that, apart from B.W. Rayward (e.g., Rayward, 2012), virtually all English-speaking researchers of information studies do not publish in these and similar reviews. As Buckland (2006) acknowledged, “there had been much more sophisticated ideas about information and information systems in continental Europe before World War II than I, or, it seemed, most others, had realized” (p. xi). One can invoke the language barrier, but Otlet (1888, 1895, 1935a, 1935b) kept himself abreast of social movements and activists in the US.

The second reason, after the untranslated and unknown works of Otlet, is the evolution of information studies. The evolution of information studies from the study of document and book – under which the legacy of Otlet has arisen as a topic in information studies (Estivals, 2010; Sargent, 2010; Van Acker, 2012) – to that of information in and of itself has diverted authors’ attention from Otlet. Although important, the concepts of document or book represented only a fraction of the ideas that Otlet put forth. Otlet’s reflections prove to be immense in their scope and cross-cut a variety of disciplines (Blanquet, 2010a, 2010b; Kongolo, 2010; Stanescu, 2010).

The third reason, related to the second, resides in the fact that the digitization of books and libraries has overshadowed Otlet’s proposed classification and codification of books and documents.

The fourth and last reason stems from the Universal Decimal Classification UDC), in connection with which Otlet is often mentioned and known in information studies. The UDC was devised in 1895 by Otlet and his close companion (Otlet and La Fontaine, 1895; Rayward, 2014a), Henri La Fontaine (1854-1943). This work was Otlet’s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification to bibliography.

A new and fresher look into Otlet’s oeuvre is needed, since Otlet’s reflections cover, among others, a topic as daunting as people’s development. The works that authors of information studies have produced on Otlet display a troublingly document-driven tenor. Yet, as noted earlier, Otlet’s works are flooded with social concerns, most of which read as legal texts, with articles and titles. As Day (1997) stated, “perhaps there has never been an information theorist who took so seriously the mapping of information upon and who was so optimistic about the possibility of social change by information as Paul Otlet” (p. 310). Notwithstanding, as seen above, there is, in information research materials, a lack of interest in and discussion about development. This comes in sharp contrast with the ubiquity of information in all spheres of the human condition. A further contrast is that development is now understood as the product of information networks and flows (see Castells, 2010: 187-188, 210-215). On this score, information research is lagging behind in comparison with fields such as geography, anthropology, sociology, communication studies, etc., which have produced extensive work on development (Horowitz, 1999; Mosse, 2013; Long, 2001; Potter, Conway, Evans and Lloyd-Evans, 2012; Quarry and Ramírez, 2009; Smith, 2012). The present paper aims to fill this gap.

Literature review

Otlet’s oeuvre is structured around three main themes: development, behavior, and interdependence, with development being taken here as the leading theme due to the lack of interest displayed in it by information research.

Development

Thorough analysis reveals the topic of development to percolate throughout Otlet’s writings. Second only, perhaps, to his Plan Belgique (Otlet, 1935b), L’Afrique aux noirs (Otlet, 1888) can be said to supply Otlet’s most indicative and poignant reflections on development. Both the title and shortness of L’Afrique aux noirs can be misleading. L’Afrique aux noirs is second to Plan Belgique only to the extent that development is understood as a process of modernization and systems. Entire sections of La fin de la guerre (Otlet, 1914) have been reproduced in Constitution (Otlet, 1917). Other works of Otlet such as Le chômage (Otlet, 1895), La fin de la guerre (Otlet, 1914), Constitution mondiale des sociétés (Otlet, 1917), Monde (1935a), and Traité de documentation (Otlet, 1934) encompass substantial reflections on development, but to a lesser degree.

The recurrence of development in Otlet’s thoughts is not entirely surprising, because although Otlet relinquished his legal career, almost as soon as he started it (detail below), the legal background and the subsequent engagements with the achievement of human pursuits appeared markedly through his works. As described earlier, he was involved and interested in varying social issues. Rayward (2014a) noted, “the meetings of the various groups [in which Otlet was involved] provided a forum for publications, reports and discussions on issues of political reform and economic and social welfare [emphasis added]” (p. 15). Looking at the devastating consequences of the war, Otlet (1914) deplored “the lessons learned from the times of war and peace show that peace between societies tends to foster prosperity whereas war leaves us with hatred, destruction, and underdevelopment” (p. 12). The idea of Otlet here is to relate peace to prosperity. This means that, without prosperity, peace is even worse than war. Yet, peace is a theme largely under-represented in ICT4D and information management debates. Strongly re-echoing Otlet’s tenets, Zeliger (2013) stated, “over the past fifteen years it has become abundantly clear that development work cannot advance without addressing the underlying dynamics of violence, while peacebuilding is not effective without addressing the basic needs of people” (p. xii). Similar thoughts were unequivocally defended by Otlet.

A few years later, Otlet (1917) clarified his position regarding the devastating effects of war on development:

Just like a harmful incident can produce some beneficial outcomes, so can war … But at what cost does war yield benefits? The development of small nations that have escaped the devastation of war and weapons is a case in point … where people’s wellbeing can be seen. (pp. 26-27)

One can see here the notion of development as people’s happiness. This notion is now exclusively promoted by Kroll (2011, 2013).

In sharp contrast to his time, Otlet (1888) defined the presence of Europeans in Africa [and Congo, then a colony of Belgium] as follows:

The development of the Congo is primarily human and Christian. These [Africans or Congolese] are human and thus should be relieved from an oppression that has been going on for so long. As such they qualify for material and economic development. (p. 10)

The aspect of humanity and (Christian) morality was the overarching characteristic of development that Europeans ought to follow. Otlet was very clear about and aware of how humanity implies more than just economic and material development, all of which completely contradicted and challenged the 19th-century practice of colonization. Remember that Otlet’s (1888) book was published 4 years after the Berlin Conference established the borders of Africa, with a view of Africa as the private properties of Europeans. The distinctions that Otlet made about the dimensions of development were groundbreaking. As a high-ranked and well-paid lawyer, Otlet had no vested interest in questioning the prevailing view of possession, destruction, and dehumanization that Europeans held about Africa.

Otlet’s vision of development for developing countries could be captured as follows:

Based on the rapid progress achieved in the US the last century, it is not an exaggeration to state that at the turn of the century, Boma [South West of Congo], Leopoldville [main city of Congo] and Banana [seaport South West of Congo] may become the equivalent of New York, Chicago and Washington on the African continent. (Otlet, 1888: 15)

It is not an exaggeration to say that, if the words of Otlet on (African) development had been heeded, the rapports seen today between developed and developing countries would have been different. Education was also understood as key to development. Otlet (1888) wrote:

By sending a number of young people to Germany and France to learn the skills of higher education, Russia made significant improvements to the living standards of its population, and thus became a developed country. Even now numerous foreigners come to our schools from countries such as Serbia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, and Japan to learn the norms and skills of the West. (pp. 16-17)

Interestingly enough, most of the societies listed above have achieved more of Otlet’s developmental prognosis than has Africa. The reasons for this difference merit scholarly research, but fall beyond the scope of the present paper. Meanwhile, education in ICT4D and information management tends to be seen as the mere acquisition of ICT skills.

Otlet was unequivocal about the equality between Europeans or colonizers and Africans. He wrote:

Are we (Europeans) going to destroy rather than develop Africa? The history of societies teaches us to avoid hasty progress, and colonization shows that the endeavors of the colonizer must serve the colonized. (Otlet, 1888: 11)

His knowledge of and references to other cases of colonization or progress provided him with an informed and cautious view of interaction between individuals, cultures, and communities.

It becomes indisputable that Otlet invited Europeans to a deeper and more responsible sense of sponsorship and leadership in Africa. As he stated, “there is no such thing as a right to conquer” (Otlet, 1914: 14). An idea that is worth recalling is that of renewal. Otlet understood development as a process of renewal or regeneration, which takes place within the interaction between individuals and groups. He argued:

Concerning the interaction with Africans, namely their social and political conditions that need to be organized and developed, it is by Africans themselves – helped by Europeans – that such process of renewal needs to take place. (Otlet, 1888: 12)

Development was not defined simply as a set of rules or warnings against Europeans, but as a lifestyle of progress that all humans must adopt.

Otlet (1934) insisted that the development of sciences and technologies should translate into the development of people and their societies. He elaborated:

Our time, like many others, is characterized by the following patterns: organization and rationalization of methods and procedures, mechanization, cooperation, globalization, development of science and technology, and concerns to apply these patterns to the progress of societies… It is for this reason that books and documents are published. (1934, see Preface)

As clearly stressed, the end goal of a book is people’s development. This means that development corresponds to an inherent drive of humans (see Otlet, 1914: 12; Otlet, 1935b: 159). Otlet used the metaphor of water and a tongue. Just like water can be used as irrigation or flooding and a tongue can be used to curse or bless, so too information, information technology, science, or document can become a useful or harmful instrument of humanity. Therefore, Otlet (1914) described development as a “preservation and expansion of life” (p. 12). This view speaks to the idea of sustainable development, in contrast to the idea of mere production of information technology, goods, and services. However, ICT4D and information management literature tends to regard sustainable development as an environmental process (Heeks, 2014a; Chowdhury, 2012). According to Otlet, sustainability or any development program ought to involve the totality of life.

Otlet was aware that for his project of documentation or unification of knowledge to come to fruition might take several decades or more, and that there needed to be insightful individuals, committed associations and governments keen on the social progress of people (see Otlet, 1934: 417). Most interestingly, he defined human beings as the means and ends of progress. This idea embraces much more than “the right kind of heart, mind, and will” (Toyama, 2015: xvi). Otlet (1934) explained, “man can give way to his imagination and thus achieve the highest ideals since he is the manifestation of the progress made by him” (p. 77). The beneficiaries of development must partake in the development process. But Otlet acknowledged that all nations had not produced the same outcomes in implementing development (1935a: 222).

To summarize, development is a social phenomenon inherent to humans. All humans are born to enjoy a better life, and development ensures the various needs of human existence. Humans are the ends and means of development. Development achieves the highest dreams of humans. Europeans were called upon by Otlet to ensure the wellbeing of local populations (in colonies). He insisted on equality and peace as the milieu in which people’s development takes place.

Behavior

The literature of ICT4D and information management tends to equate the concept of behavior with access to and uses of ICTs. Otlet (1888, 1895, 1905, 1914, 1917, 1919, 1920, 1926, 1929a, 1935a, 1935b) paid extensive attention to people’s behaviors in order to make the world a better place. He called on information researchers to investigate the various components of people’s behaviors because development that does not involve the whole behavior of a person is incomplete. Otlet (1935a) maintained, “knowledge is not an image of reality added to us, or something put in a container, but rather it penetrates, models, and transforms our being” (p. 337). This implies that information is not just put into a person’s brain, but it transforms and fulfills the whole person. Most authors of information studies view information behavior as an entity in and of itself, with criteria such as group, age, gender, occupation, status, demographic, etc. (Bawden and Robinson, 2012; Fisher and Julien, 2009; Spink and Heinström, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Otlet distinguished the following components of human behavior: cosmic, biological, neurologic, sensorial, psychological, social, spiritual, mental, cultural, ethnic, intellectual, affective, ethical, cognitive, and linguistic (see Otlet, 1935a: 70-83). Information researchers are called upon to consider a human being in the full sense of the word. As Otlet (1935a) remarked, “a person’s life must be considered in its totality” (p. 280). The recently proposed idea of “inclusive development” (Heeks, 2014a: 26) might be close to Otlet’s philosophy, but ‘totality’ has the advantage of involving both the breadth and depth of life. Otlet (1935a) clarified, “human life must be expanded to the fullest” (p. 277). The point is not just that people’s capabilities or abilities need to be expanded – magnified or amplified, to use the terms of Toyama (2010, 2015) – but about life itself, that has to be lived to the fullest, regardless of whether a person has the abilities or not.

It is tempting for authors in information-related fields to simply look at sections of human behavior, under the façade of information needs or ICT access, and thus forget the totality of human life. Human behavior is conceived of as a platform of development. Otlet (1935b) elaborated: “the development of humans must be achieved in a holistic manner” (p. 31). This allows development to involve the totality of reality. With its insistence on a view of life in its totality and the expansion of life to the fullest, Otlet’s view of development goes beyond the mere idea of multidimensional development, an idea increasingly found in development literature (see Alkire et al., 2015; Giugale, 2014; Harriss, 2014). As shown earlier, this view raises development to the level of human actualization or the fullness of wellbeing. Furthermore, development does not mean to just “liberate others from the cult-like hold of technology” (Toyama, 2015: 15). There are many cults or forces that ruin people’s lives. Thus, Otlet proposed that people should be able to live fuller and better lives. Citing Le Bulletin de l’Institut National d’Orientation Professionnelle, Otlet (1935a) proposed the following characteristics in order to monitor a person’s behavior: intelligent, excited, courageous, good, transparent, honest, modest, emphatic, open, poised, leading, strong, sensitive, and loving (p. 83). All these components relate to each other, and contribute to a person’s development. Information researchers are called upon to be aware of these components in order to enhance and challenge their knowledge of people.

Interdependence

Otlet (1914, 1917, 1935a, 1935b) observed that interdependence was a given of social reality. Despite the increasingly sophisticated connections among people, interdependence is vastly under-utilized in the literature of ICT4D and information management. This might be because of a growing emphasis placed on locality. As he noted, “with its repercussions and dynamics, interdependence markedly affects modern day society” (Otlet, 1935a: iii; see also Buckland, 2012b: 274). People are inclined to proclaim and fight for independence, but not for interdependence. For Otlet, one of the major markers of interdependence is complementarity or diversity. He wrote, “the diversity of societies needs to be acknowledged alongside unity” (1935a: 125). Otlet propounded several solutions related to interdependence, of which this paper itemizes only a few. He suggested that knowledge or information is the solution to the phenomenon of (world) interdependence (Otlet, 1935a, 1920). It is widely acknowledged among development practitioners and theorists that development requires a great deal of concerted effort and projects in order to best serve the world’s poorest (Currie-Alder, Kanbur, Malone and Medhora, 2014; Giugale, 2014; McMichael, 2012; Potter, Conway, Evans and Lloyd-Evans, 2012; Unwin, 2009). Many works speak to the reality of interdependence here discussed. For example, the increasing need for sharing information (i.e., data, findings, proposals, bids, etc.) in academia and industry has only confirmed Otlet’s convictions. Otlet also believed that the more people are developed around the world the better human civilization becomes. Otlet (1935a) argued, “the more people are developed the more cooperation and security are likely to be beneficial. This is mainly because people are able to partake in their nation’s dividends” (p. 168). In other words, interdependence should translate into the development of each and every human being on earth. Since development socializes people, diversity or interdependence bears a lot of significance.

Method

The method used in this paper is one of qualitative content analysis, with an eye to supplying an in-depth understanding of the topic or phenomenon being inquired into. The main difference between qualitative and quantitative inquiry is that the former aims at deep information about that which is being investigated, whereas the latter seeks to reflect the larger population by providing information collected from a sample of that population (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2015). This paper investigates the research question as to how Otlet’s writings resonate with or challenge both today’s real world and research in information-centered disciplines. Thus, the goal of content analysis here was to peer into Otlet’s oeuvre to unearth the patterns and insights needed to illuminate existing debates of development and information. In so doing, the paper also seeks to provoke interested parties in information fields.

It bears underlining that this paper is one of qualitative content analysis, with a view, not to produce universal laws and recipes based on Otlet’s works, but to take stock of the patterns, insights, or hunches that thread through these works. This is the proper aim of qualitative research, to go past a peripheral view of a document or phenomenon and generate deep information on it (Cibangu, 2013a; Patton, 2015). We cater to the ideas of reliability and validity by providing specific central constructs or concepts around which the discussion revolves. We avoid providing prescriptive assumptions since this is not a quantitative research. Instead, we aimed to bring to light insights that can serve as “lessons learned” – to use a preferred term of Yin (2014: 40) – to inspire or challenge interested researchers/readers of both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Discussion

Otlet did not originate the ideas or patterns exposed in this paper (e.g., development, peace, behavior, interdependence, etc.), but he brought them to bear on the discourse of information research. In other words, he enriched the understanding of information research with patterns that have the potential to improve the living conditions of the poor or the vulnerable. In so doing, Otlet opened the door to brighter horizons of social debates in information research. Most, if not all, information researchers before and after him do not make this connection; rather they see information research as the mere pursuit and functionality of clicks, searches, uses, and related behaviors. To pinpoint this state of affairs, Chaudhuri (2012) indicated, “ICT4D discussions are hence replete with searches for ‘killer apps’ – applications that would drive the demands for the technologies they piggyback on” (p. 331). The idea boils down to the technoholic vogue which is crippling information-related fields and their ways of doing research.

It would be unrealistic, and indeed unproductive, for scholars to investigate the patterns embedded in documents, writings, phenomena, events, processes, institutions, etc. only when the originality of these patterns is believed or proven. On the contrary, patterns encountered in an author’s writing are key to deep inquiry, and thus render it possible to best capture the outliers (see Patton, 2015) or unaddressed issues of our world and work. The positivistic mantra of laboratory discovery and innovation has led authors understandably to prefer innovation to patterns and meanings of the reality around us. This paper is not a positivistic or laboratory research producing prescriptions and formulas with which to control and predict the world as a laboratory, but a qualitative content analysis applied to the works of a specific author. It is like saying that the blood sample of an Ebola patient can be a subject of inquiry only and if it bears some originality or innovation in comparison to other Ebola patients. So this paper does not claim that Otlet is an inventor or innovator (of formulas) in comparison to his contemporaries, but that the patterns found in his works give substance to the social discourse of information research in our increasingly poverty-riven world.

It is not that our world lacks innovations or discoveries; rather, we need ordinary people who make a difference in the way they think and act. Indeed, “in the twenty-first century, we have plenty of packaged interventions” (Toyama, 2015: 214), invented here and there. Although Otlet lived and wrote his ideas in circumstances and societies different from those of our times and spaces, he raised many of the challenging issues that are distinctive of modern day societies. As Rayward (1997) pertinently wrote, “our challenge is to come back to Otlet’s original ideas so that we can examine some of their implications [emphasis added] for the unfolding discipline or set of disciplines we now call ‘‘Information Science’” (p. 290). Our discussion unfolds in three steps: (1) development, behavior, and interdependence, (2) Otlet’s legacy, and (3) limitations.

Development, behavior, and interdependence

Otlet envisaged people’s wellbeing as human, material, urban (infrastructural), behavioral, relational, and international. One of his beliefs was that tools and technologies should liberate humans, and not use or possess them. He emphasized that “technology should liberate, not possess people” (Otlet, 1935a: 390). Toyama (2010) described technology as “a magnifier of human intent and capacity [emphasis in original]” (p. 15). But Otlet insisted on the liberating aspect of technology, regardless of whether a person has or does not have the capacity or intent. A good example is that of disabled people who do not always have the needed capacity or intent. Also, the adoption of new technologies has been taking place in such a way that people have no option but to acquire the new devices. It follows that people’s dependency on these technologies (e.g., credit card, laptop, iPod, etc.) has been posing problems of human freedom. It is one thing to invent a technology, but another to lose one’s freedom. Otlet challenged us to look into how people can still be fully human, renewed, or developed in the process of acquiring and handling technology.

It is questionable, and in fact problematic, that information management researchers tend to take development to mean the development of devices, and not that of people. Some writers on information management research have emphasized aspects of the concept of ‘people’, in areas such as socio-technical design, everyday life information, social actors, specific social groups, etc. (Fisher and Julien, 2009; Spink and Heinström, 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Zwass, 2011). However, the focus on and the knowledge of the person or people are supplanted by the usability of the systems or the efficiency of information seeking. As Zwass (2011) pointed out, “the people, processes, and projects have to fit the nature of the provisioning [of systems or information]” (p. x). Otlet’s (1888, 1895, 1905, 1914, 1917, 1919, 1920, 1926, 1929a, 1929b, 1934, 1935a, 1935b) works call on information management analysts to inquire into how a person or people function in and of themselves. He challenged information researchers to look into a person’s and people’s lives in order to make the most of interdependence. Studies of information management need to go beyond the mere idea of the uses of ICT to look at how to help individuals and societies capture the forces characterizing their respective uses. Otlet (1935a) noted, “the world is the habitat of humans, a place assigned to them” (p. xi). Otlet spoke of the real world as human habitat. Habitat encompasses the idea of a natural setting in which life finds the needed conditions for the flourishing of all humans.

As described earlier, one of the calls of Otlet, if not the strongest, is that of attending to the interdependence of individuals and societies. His idea of interdependence reverberates in the last of the eight Millennium Development Goals, under the rubric ‘global partnership’ (http://www.undp.org). Several concepts or institutions of our societies, now taken for granted, speak to Otlet’s dreams, such as the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org), the International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.ohchr.org). He fought for the creation of those institutions.

Information studies typify Otlet’s remark about interdependence. Throughout its history, the field of information studies has been found to lack the connective tissue of research and theory (Brookes, 1981; Buckland, 2012a; Day, 2010; Hjørland, 2014; Ibekwe-SanJuan, 2012; Saracevic, 1970; Spink and Heinström, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Recent publications do not show a sign of improvement. Spink and Heinström (2011) deplored, “one of the identified challenges of information behaviour research is the wide flora of various theories and models, and the lack of integration and dialogue among these” (p. 8; see Hjørland, 2014: 230; Ibekwe-SanJuan, 2012: 1693). Information-related studies should stand as the avant-garde of interdependence, for academia and industry. One area in which this line of work could also be conducted is that of cross-settings research. Although increasingly needed in modern societies, cross-settings research is lacking in information studies (Buckland, 2012a; Bawden and Robinson, 2012; Davis and Shaw, 2011; Savolainen, 2012, 2013; Spink and Heinström, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). Cross-settings research sheds light on synergistic works between individuals, cultures, groups, nations, institutions, and corporations.

Otlet’s legacy

Despite all the above, Otlet’s legacy is in limbo in several respects. To show the magnitude of the ‘documentalism’ ascribed to Otlet, a few examples with which to apply Otlet’s thoughts will clarify our discussion. In 2007, referring to the war-instigated plunder of Iraqi ancient libraries, Rayward and Jerkins wrote,

Each of the large categories that may be used for historical analysis – the social welfare of a people, the structure and interaction of social classes, the nature and conditions of the economy and trade, territorial changes, the interrelationships of the institutions of church and state, the mechanisms of government and the national and international dimensions of political relationships, and ideas of patrimony and cultural heritage, for example – involves at some level an encounter with aspects of the production, communication, and use of information and the mechanisms and practices by means of which such encounters become possible. (pp. 361-362)

Otlet was not mentioned in that paper although he fought for the same ideas, such as social welfare of people, national and international relationships, peace, economic conditions, governments, patrimony, cultural heritage, etc. Recent publications of information studies do not do him justice, either. In 2012, Bawden and Robinson stated, “the centuries-old desire for universal bibliographic control was pursued by the new ‘documentalist movement’, pioneered by the Belgian scholars Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine” (pp. 30-31; see also pp. 43, 76, 118; or Ibekwe-SanJuan, 2012: 1694, 1696). In 2013, Robinson and Bawden reiterated the document-confined account of Otlet, with no further mention of his other important teachings, saying, “Otlet and his fellow documentalists had largely relied on the final flowering of the paper card-based systems” (p. 759; see also Ibekwe-SanJuan and Dousa, 2013; Dousa, 2010). At least, this statement could have been qualified with the idea that Otlet envisaged the Web, wireless technologies, or microfilm (Manfroid, Gillen, and Phillips-Batoma, 2013: 311-313; Rayward, 2014b: 689; Wright, 2014a, 2014b), and that, on this and several other fronts, he departed from his companion Henri La Fontaine. Consequently, many of Otlet’s social issues remain under-researched and/or ignored.

If sustained thought had been given to Otlet’s works, the notion of information generally held by information researchers would have not resulted “in adopting new technologies that focus on technical and managerial issues of the adaptation, thus allowing information-as-a-commodity to take precedence over information-as-liberation” (Cole, 2013, para. 8). As seen earlier, Otlet understood information technology to be the tool(s) of liberation. Cole (2013) underlined, “in order for the research area [of information studies] to take hold and influence society, research that does not contain this ambition should not be considered worth doing … Information science in general and information behavior research in particular has not had much effect on the computer science-dominated paradigm” (paras. 3 and 4).

Many ideas can be explored by looking afresh at Otlet’s works. Rayward (1997) remarked,

The [Otletian] ideas and practices to be discussed would today be rubricated as information technology, information retrieval, search strategies, information centers, fee-based information services, linked data bases, database management software, scholarly communication networks, multimedia and hypertext, even the modern, diffuse notion of ‘‘information’’ itself. (p. 289)

These and other subjects covered by Otlet can be addressed by researchers in different ways, depending on their agendas and priorities. Not one subject is the sole identifier of Otlet. For example, Rayward (1994) stated, “he [Otlet] is a precursor of Bush (1945), Englebart (1963), Nelson (1983, 1987), and others who have set the hypertext/hypermedia agenda in recent years and that he anticipated many of the features of Bush’s memex, Nelson’s Xanadu, and hypertext” (p. 235; see also Wright, 2014a, 2014b). Blanquet (2006) listed many Otlet-inspired areas such as 3-D dimension images, iconography, social media, site association, etc. Moreover, with regard to scholarly work, current issues of information studies can be traced back to Otlet. Buckland and Hahn poignantly (1997) affirmed, “for decades, Paul Otlet (1868-1944) wrestled with, and wrote about, both theoretical and practical problems of Information Science” (p. 286). Otlet’s works and ideas challenge and inspire current information research.

Limitations

A number of limitations plague Otlet’s works, of which we list here five of the most evident: (1) the unclear idea of a global knowledge city: as it met with resistance and failure during Otlet’s times, the leadership or organization of the global knowledge city, not to mention its accountability, raises questions; (2) the information-led wellbeing of people is a noble idea, but its practicality remains vague; (3) a world army, bank, and currency need further details of practicality as well; (4) the idea of a universal language, Esperanto, now almost dead, which, as Otlet (1934: 91) argued, made significant progress, needs explanation for its implementation; and (5) although Otlet recognized the equality of human dignity for all races (see Otlet, 1935a: 85-87; 1888: 10-11; 1914: 14; 1917: 149) and the work that still needs to be done in that regard (1935a: 180), his statement or belief that some races are inferior clashes with the project of universal knowledge of all peoples (Otlet, 1935b: 1914, 1917). In addition, the method used in this paper, namely qualitative research, privileges in-depth inquiry over large-scale and context-independent statements. Despite these and other limitations, Otlet’s works represent a needed tool for information studies because the modern world is called upon to make the most of information in order to improve people’s lives.

Conclusion

This paper seeks to expand the discourse of information studies and ICT4D to that of development in order to improve the quality of life of those wrapped up in the increasing uses of new information technologies. Otlet represents an important point of departure on which to anchor such debates. Although known exclusively for document(ation), the works of Otlet embody a tremendous wealth of research areas, and further investigation is needed to unearth the value of these works. The plight of the world’s poorest and the all too often erratic spread of new information devices among the poor call for a tighter grasp of information-driven development, development gravitated toward fuller human actualization. Otlet belongs to his times, the 19th-century background, therefore, his statements should be taken within that context. This paper aims to view and value Otlet’s works beyond the boundaries of his times and the reductionism of information age and document. The language barrier could not and should not have overshadowed Otlet’s undertakings in information studies, ICT4D, and development studies. As a pioneer of information research and management, Otlet took information to be the toolkit of people’s development and their actualization or civilization. He presented development to be a multi-force phenomenon. With its myriad facets and corollaries, development requires information authors to drill deeper into the real world lives of people.

References

Adams

Tiesdell

(2012) Shaping Places: Urban Planning Design and Development. New York: Routledge.

Alkire

Foster

Seth

Santos

Roche

Ballon

(2015) Multidimensional Poverty Index: Measurement and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ashraf

Weil

Wilde

(2013) The effect of fertility reduction on economic growth. Population and Development Review 39(1): 97–130.

Avgerou

(2008) Information systems in developing countries: A critical research review. Journal of Information Technology 23(3): 133–146.

Avgerou

(2010) Discourses on ICT and development. Information Technologies and International Development 6(3): 1–18.

Bates

Maack

(2010) Introduction. In: Bates

Maack

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. xi-xviii.

Bawden

Robinson

(2012) Introduction to Information Science. London: Facet.

Blanchemanche

Cassiers

Hallet

Otlet

(1891) Sommaire Périodique des Revues de Droit: Table Mensuelle de tous les Articles et Etudes Juridiques Publiés dans les Périodiques Belges et Etrangers. Brussels: Librairie Générale de Jurisprudence.

Blanquet

M-F

(2006) Paul Otlet. Available at: http://www.cndp.fr/savoirscdi/societe-de-linformation/le-monde-du-livre-et-de-la-presse/histoire-du-livre-et-de-la-documentation/biographies/paul-otlet.html (accessed February 10, 2015).

10.

Blanquet

M-F

(2010a) Paul Otlet et le cercle de ses contemporains: Précurseurs comme lui, des sciences de l’information. Revue de Bibliologie 73: 14–34.

11.

Blanquet

M-F

(2010b) Paul Otlet et la bibliologie. Documentaliste: Sciences de l’Information 47(2): 18–19.

12.

Brookes

(1980) The foundations of information science: Part I. Philosophical aspects. Journal of Information Science 2(3-4): 125–133.

13.

Brookes

(1981) The foundations of information science: Part IV. Information science: The changing paradigm. Journal of Information Science 3(1): 3–12.

14.

Buenstorf

(ed) (2012) Evolution, Organization, and Economic Behavior. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

15.

Buckland

(2006) Emmanuel Goldberg and his Knowledge Machine: Information, Invention, and Political Forces. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

16.

Buckland

(2012a) What kind of science can information science be? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(1): 1–7.

17.

Buckland

(2012b) Interrogating spatial analogies relating to knowledge organization: Paul Otlet and others. Library Trends 61(2): 271–285.

18.

Buckland

Hahn

(1997) Introduction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(4): 285–288.

19.

Case

(2012) Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior (3rd ed.) Bingley, UK: Emerald.

20.

Castells

(ed) (2010) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 1. The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed., with a new preface). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

21.

Chaudhuri

(2012) ICT for Development: Solutions seeking problems? Journal of Information Technology 27(4): 326–338.

22.

Chowdhury

(2012) Building environmentally sustainable information services: A green IS research agenda. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(4): 633–647.

23.

Cibangu

(2013a) A memo of qualitative research for information science: Toward theory construction. Journal of Documentation 69(2): 194–213.

24.

Cibangu

(2013b) Toward a critique of the information age: Herbert Marcuse’s contribution to information science’s conceptions. Information Research 18(3) paper C30.

25.

Clark

(ed.) (2006) The Elgar Companion to Development Studies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

26.

Clark

(ed.) (2007) Adaptation, poverty and well-being: Some issues and observations with special reference to the capability approach and development studies. In: Working Paper Series 081 Global Poverty Research Group, University of Manchester.

27.

Cole

(2013) [Review of the book, Theory in Information Behaviour Research, by Wilson

T. D

]. Information Research 18(3).

28.

Creswell

(2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Cronin

(2012) The waxing and waning of a field: Reflections on information studies education. Information Research 17(3): 529.

30.

Currie-Alder

Kanbur

Malone

Medhora

(2014) The state of development thought. In: Currie-Alder

Kanbur

Malone

Medhora

(eds.) International Development: Ideas, Experience, and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.

31.

Davis

Shaw

(2011) Introduction to Information Science and Technology. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

32.

Day

(1997) Paul Otlet’s book and the writing of social space. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(4): 310–317.

33.

Day

(2010) The self-imposed limits of library and information science: Remarks on the discipline, on the profession, on the university, and on the state of “information” in the U.S. at large today. Interactions 6(2).

34.

Diga

(2013a) Access and usage of ICTs by the poor (Part I). In: Elder

Emdon

Fuchs

Petrazzini

(eds.) Connecting ICTs to Development: The IDRC Experience. New York, NY: Anthem Press, pp. 117–135.

35.

Diga

(2013b) Local and economic opportunities and ICTs: How ICTs affect livelihoods (Part II). In: Elder

Emdon

Fuchs

Petrazzini

(eds.) Connecting ICTs to Development: The IDRC Experience. New York, NY: Anthem Press, pp. 137–160.

36.

Dousa

(2010) Facts and frameworks in Paul Otlet’s and Julius Otto Kaiser’s theories of knowledge organization. Bulletin for American Society for Information Science and Technology 36(2): 19–25.

37.

Duncombe

(2012a) Understanding mobile phone impact on livelihoods in developing countries: A new research framework. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.48.

38.

Duncombe

(2012b) Mobile phones for agricultural and rural development: A literature review and future research directions. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.50.

39.

Estivals

(2010) Paul Otlet dans l’histoire de la bibliologie. Revue de Bibliologie 73: 35–42.

40.

Fisher

Julien (2009) Information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 43: 317–358.

41.

Fuchs

(2013) From heresy to orthodoxy: ICT4D at IDRC. In: Elder

Emdon

Fuchs

Petrazzini

(eds.) Connecting ICTs to Development: The IDRC Experience. New York, NY: Anthem Press, pp. 1–17.

42.

Ghils

(2003) Fonder le monde, fonder le savoir du monde ou la double utopie d’Otlet. Transnational Associations 1-2: 36–48.

43.

Gillen

(ed.) (2010) Paul Otlet (1868-1944), Fondateur du Mundaneum: Architecte du Savoir, Artisan de Paix. Brussels: Les Impressions Nouvelles.

44.

Giugale

(2014) Economic Development: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

45.

Greve

(2001) Successful human development: Psychological conceptions. In: Smelser

Baltes

(eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 10). New York: Elsevier, pp. 6970–6974.

46.

Harris

Butterworth

(2002) Developmental Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. New York: Psychology Press.

47.

Harriss

(2014) Development theories. In: Currie-Alder

Kanbur

Malone

Medhora

(eds.) International Development: Ideas, Experience, and Prospects. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–49.

48.

Heeks

(2007) Theorizing ICT4D research. Information Technologies and International Development 3(3): 1–4.

49.

Heeks

(2012) Deriving an ICT4D research agenda: A commentary on ‘Information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D): Solutions seeking problems?’ Journal of Information Technology 27(4): 339–341.

50.

Heeks

(2014a) ICT4D 2016: New priorities for ICT4D policy, practice and WSIS in a post-2015 world. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.59.

51.

Heeks

(2014b) From the MDGs to the post-2015 agenda: Analysing changing development priorities. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.56.

52.

Heeks

(2014c) ICTs and poverty eradication: Comparing economic, livelihoods and capabilities models. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.58.

53.

Heeks

Subramanian

Jones

(2013) Understanding e-waste management in developing countries: Building sustainability in the Indian ICT sector. In: IDPM Development Informatics Working Paper no.52.

54.

Hellemans

(1996) Les multiples facettes de l’activité de Paul Otlet. In: Nouvelles Technologies, Modèles Sociaux et Sciences de l’Ecrit: Actes du 13$ème Colloque International de Bibliologie. Paris: Delagrave, pp. 191–199.

55.

Hellemans

(2006) Paul Otlet: Fondateur du movement bibliologique international. Available at: http://www.aib.ulb.ac.be/colloques/2006-alexandrie/fulltext/hellemans.pdf (accessed February 10, 2015).

56.

Henderson

Storeygard

Weil

(2012) Measuring economic growth from outer space. The American Economic Review 102(2): 994–1028.

57.

Hjørland

(2014) Information science and its core concepts: Levels of disagreement. In: Ibekwe-SanJuan

Dousa

(eds.) Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Springer, pp. 205–235.

58.

Horowitz

(1999) The sustainability of anthropology and development. Development Anthropologist 17: 10–24.

59.

Ibekwe-SanJuan

(2012) The French conception of Information Science: “Une exception Française”? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(9): 1693–1709.

60.

Ibekwe-SanJuan

Dousa

(eds.) (2013) Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Springer.

61.

Kalsched

(2013) Trauma and the Soul: A Psycho-spiritual Approach to Human Development and its Interruption. New York: Routledge.

62.

Kongolo

(2010) Paul Otlet et Paul Panda: Un dialogue fécond. Revue de Bibliologie 73: 55–64.

63.

Kroll

(2011) Measuring Progress and Well-being: Achievements and Challenges of a New Global Movement. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert.

64.

Kroll

(2013) Global development and happiness: How can data on subjective wellbeing inform development theory and practice: How can the new science of happiness add value to development theory and practice? In: IDS University of Sussex Discussion Paper No 432.

65.

Laqua

(2013) Intellectual exchange and the new information order of the interwar years: The British Society for International Bibliography, 1927–1937. Library Trends 62(2): 465–477.

66.

Laudon

(2014) Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm (13th ed.) London: Pearson.

67.

Lerner

(2001) History of developmental sciences. In: Smelser

Baltes

(eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 11). New York: Elsevier, pp. 3615–3620.

68.

Levie

(2006) L’Homme qui Voulait Classer le Monde: Paul Otlet et le Mundaneum. Brussels: Les Impressions Nouvelles.

69.

Lockner

(ed.) (2013) Steps to Local Government Reform: A Guide to Tailoring Local Government Reforms to Fit Regional Governance Communities in Democracies. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.

70.

Long

(2001) Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

71.

Manfroid

Gillen

Phillips-Batoma

(2013) The archives of Paul Otlet: Between appreciation and rediscovery, 1944–2013. Library Trends 62(2): 311–328.

72.

McMichael

(2012) Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Mohan

(2008) Participatory development. In: Desai

Potter

(eds.) The Companion to Development Studies (2nd ed.) London: Hodder Education, pp. 45–50.

74.

Mosse

(2013) The anthropology of international development. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 227–246.

75.

Nolin

(2010) Sustainable information and information science. Information Research 15(2).

76.

Otlet

(1888) L’Afrique aux Noirs. Brussels: Ferdinand Larcier.

77.

Otlet

(1895) Le Chômage Involontaire: Contribution à l’Etude de l’Assurance contre le Chômage. Paris: Secrétariat Général du Comité.

78.

Otlet

(1905) Organisation Rationnelle de l’Information et de la Documentation en Matière Economique. Brussels: Hayez.

79.

Otlet

(1914) La Fin de la Guerre: Traité de Paix Général Basé sur une Charte Mondiale Déclarant les Droits de l’Humanité et organisant la Confédération des Etats. Brussels: UIA.

80.

Otlet

(1916) Les Problèmes Internationaux et la Guerre: Tableau des Conditions et Solutions Nouvelles de l’Economie, du Droit et de la Politique. Paris: Rousseau.

81.

Otlet

(1917) Constitution Mondiale de la Société des Nations: Le Nouveau Droit des Gens. Brussels: UIA.

82.

Otlet

(1919) Les associations internationales et la reconstruction de l’après-guerre. Revue Générale des Sciences 30: 114–119.

83.

Otlet

(1920) Sur la Création d’une Université Internationale. Brussels: UIA.

84.

Otlet

(1926) Pour une Monnaie internationale: Le Franc Universel. Brussels: Office de Publicité.

85.

Otlet

(1929a) La Banque Internationale: Economie Mondiale et Société Financière des Nations. Brussels: L’Eglantine.

86.

Otlet

(1929b) The international organisation of information services. In: ASLIB Proceedings: Sixth Conference, Trinity College, Cambridge, UK, September 20th–23rd, 1929. London: ASLIB, pp. 156–159.

87.

Otlet

(1934) Traité de Documentation: Le Livre sur le Livre: Théorie et Pratique. Brussels: Mundaneum.

88.

Otlet

(1935a) Monde: Essai d’Universalisme: Connaissance du Monde, Sentiment du Monde, Action Organisée et Plan du Monde. Brussels: Mundaneum.

89.

Otlet

(1935b) Plan Belgique: Essai d’un Plan Général Economique, Social, Culturel; Plan d’Urbanisation National; Liaison avec le Plan Mondial: Conditions, Problèmes, Solutions, Réformes. Brussels: Mundaneum.

90.

Otlet

La Fontaine

(1895) Sommaire Méthodique des Traités et des Revues, Dressé conformément à la Classification Décimale. Brussels: Office International de Bibliographie.

91.

Perry

(2001) Infrastructure investment. In: Smelser

Baltes

(eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 11). New York: Elsevier, pp. 7486–7489.

92.

Potter

Conway

Evans

Lloyd-Evans

(2012) Key Concepts in Development Geography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

93.

Quarry

Ramírez

(2009) Communication for Another Development: Listening before Telling. London: Zed.

94.

Rainier

Cegielski

(2012) Introduction to Information Systems: Supporting and Transforming Business (3rd ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

95.

Rainier

Watson

(2012) Management Information Systems: Moving Business Forward. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

96.

Rainier

Watson

Prince

(2013) Management Information Systems (2nd ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

97.

Rayward

(1974) The International Institute of Bibliography and Pierre Nenkoff, a Bulgarian librarian: An attempt at international cooperation. Libri 24(3): 209–228.

98.

Rayward

(1975). The Universe of Information: The Work of Paul Otlet for Documentation and International Organization. Moscow: VINITI.

99.

Rayward

(1983) The International Exposition and the World Documentation Congress, Paris 1937. Library Quarterly 53(3): 254–268.

100.

Rayward

(ed) (1990) International Organisation and Dissemination of Knowledge, Selected Essays of Paul Otlet ( Rayward

B.W.

, Trans.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

101.

Rayward

(1994) Visions of Xanadu: Paul Otlet (1868-1944) and hypertext. Journal of the American Society of Information Science 45(4): 235–250.

102.

Rayward

(1997) The origins of information science and the work of the International Institute of Bibliography/International Federation for Documentation and Information (FID). Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(4): 289–300.

103.

Rayward

(2012) Paul Otlet, an encounter. Cahiers de la Documentation 2: 71–73.

104.

Rayward

(2014a) Introduction: International exhibitions, Paul Otlet, Henri La Fontaine and the paradox of the belle époque. In: Rayward

(ed.) Information Beyond Borders: International and Cultural Exchange in the Belle Epoque. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 1–22.

105.

Rayward

(2014b) Information revolutions, the information society, and the future of the history of information science. Library Trends 62(3): 681–713.

106.

Rayward

Jenkins

(2007) Libraries in times of war, revolution, and social change. Library Trends 55(3): 361–369.

107.

Rieusset-Lemarié

(1997) Otlet’s Mundaneum and the international perspective in the history of documentation and information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(4): 301–309.

108.

Robinson

Bawden

(2013) ‘So wide and varied’: The origins and character of British information science. Journal of Information Science 39(6): 754–763.

109.

Robson

Robinson

(2013) Building on models of information behaviour: Linking information seeking and communication. Journal of Documentation 69(2): 169–193.

110.

Rowe

(2009) Theories of Local Economic Development: Linking Theory to Practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate

111.

Saracevic

(1970) Introduction to Information Science. New York: R.R. Bowker.

112.

Saracevic

(2010a) Information science. In: Bates

Maack

(eds.) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.) Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 2570–2585.

113.

Saracevic

(2010b) Foreword. In Spink

(ed.) Information Behavior: An Evolutionary Instinct. New York: Springer, pp. vii–ix.

114.

Starasts

(2015) Unearthing farmers’ information seeking contexts and challenges in digital, local and industry environments. Library and Information Science Research 37(2): 156–163.

115.

Sargent

(2010) Utopianism: A Very Short Instruction. New York: Oxford University Press.

116.

Savolainen

(2012) Expectancy-value beliefs and information needs as motivators for task-based information seeking. Journal of Documentation 68(4): 492–511.

117.

Savolainen

(2013) Approaching the motivators for information seeking: The viewpoint of attribution theories. Library and Information Science Research 35(1): 63–68.

118.

Shim

(2010) Korean Entrepreneurship: The Foundation of the Korean Economy. New York: Palgrave.

119.

Smith

(2012) Reimagining development education for a changing geopolitical landscape. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review 15: 1–7.

120.

Spink

Heinström

(2011) Introduction: New directions in information behaviour. In: Spink

Heinström

(eds.) New Directions in Information Behaviour. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, pp. 3–13.

121.

Spink

Heinström

(2012a) Introduction. In: Spink

Heinström

(eds.) Library and Information Science. Trends and Research: Europe. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, pp. 3–9.

122.

Spink

Heinström

(2012b) Preface. In: Spink

Heinström

(eds.) Library and Information Science. Trends and Research: Europe. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, pp. xv–xvi.

123.

Stanescu

(2010) Paul Otlet et la bibliologie. Bulletin des Bibliothèques de France 55(3).

124.

Thirlwall

(2008) Development and economic growth. In: Desai

Potter

(eds.) The Companion to Development Studies (2nd ed.) London: Hodder Education, pp. 37–40.

125.

Thornton

(2008) Understanding Human Development: Biological, Social and Psychological Processes from Conception to Adult Life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

126.

Toyama

(2010) Can technology end poverty? The Boston Review 36(5): 12–18.

127.

Toyama

(2015) Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. New York: Public Affairs.

128.

Unwin

(2009) Development agendas and the place of ICTs. In: Unwin

(ed.) ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–38.

129.

Van Acker

(2012) Hubris or utopia: Megalomania and imagination in the work of Paul Otlet. Cahiers de la Documentation 2: 58–66.

130.

Van Acker

Uyttenhove

Van Peteghem

(2014) Library towers and the vertical dimension of knowledge. Library Trends 62(3): 530–540.

131.

Van den Heuvel

Rayward

(2011) Facing interfaces: Paul Otlet’s visualizations of data integration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(12): 2313–2326.

132.

Walsham

(2013) Development informatics in a changing world: Reflections from ICTD 2010/2012. Information Technologies and International Development 9(1): 49–54.

133.

Weil

(2012) Economic Growth (3rd ed.) New York: Pearson.

134.

Wilson

(2000) Human information behaviour. Informing Science 3(2): 49–56.

135.

Wilson

(2010) Fifty years of information behavior research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 36(3): 27–34.

136.

Wright

(2014a) Cataloging the World: Paul Otlet and the Birth of the Information Age. New York: Oxford University Press.

137.

Wright

(2014b) The secret history of hypertext: The conventional history of computing leaves out some key thinkers. The Atlantic . Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/in-search-of-the-proto-memex/371385/ (accessed February 11, 2015).

138.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

139.

Zelizer

(2013) Preface. In: Zelizer

(ed.) Integrated Peacebuilding: Innovative Approaches to Transforming Conflict. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. xi–xiii.

140.

Zwass

(2011) Series’ editor introduction. In: Siau

Chian

HLR

Hardgrave

(eds.) Systems Analysis and Design: People, Processes, and Projects. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. ix–xi.