The field of information science requires one to understand what information is, what it is created out of, and whether it can be organized and modified further to produce something else. The distinctions between such terms as “data,” “information,” and “knowledge” demonstrate the different approaches to this question. Although in some cases, people use these words interchangeably, in technology and science, the discussions of these terms show a complex non-synonymous relationship between them. The present paper considers the existing definitions of “data,” “information,” and “knowledge” and presents a synthesized version of each description that builds on varying perspectives.
Data
Data is a term used as the basic building block in the reviewed publications. Although Davis and Shaw (2011) define information before data, they demonstrate a hierarchy where the latter word is at the first stage of a bottom-up approach. Thus, the shortest definition is that data “are facts that result from observations” (Davis & Shaw, 2011, p. 12). Here, one can see that the observation process leads to data collection, but no other actions are taken to analyze or process it at this stage.
Similar features of data are seen in other definitions from multiple authors. Another view of data is that it is “the basic individual items of numeric or other information, garnered through observation” (Zins, 2007, p. 481). A third description shows that data are “stimuli” perceived by someone “through [their] senses” (Zins, 2007, p. 480). Based on these definitions, data is usually seen as a certain fact that is perceived but not given any additional context or connected to other data pieces in a meaningful way. Notably, all chosen descriptions mention observation, whether through sight or other senses, meaning that “data” is something that exists outside of one’s mind in its conception.
Information
Information is a term that gains more attention and gathers different approaches to interpretation. Davis and Shaw (2011) argue that three perspectives for describing information exist, including a physical, cognitive, and socio-cognitive paradigm. Therefore, in contrast to data, information is a term that is at the center of a much larger debate. Some scientists define information as “that which is conveyed, and possibly amenable to analysis … through data and the context” (Zins, 2007, p. 481). It is apparent that data is a building block for information in this description, thus strengthening the pyramid approach.
Scientists show that information differs from data through addition and reflection. From another view, information includes “collections of facts provided with context” (Davis & Shaw, 2011, p. 12). The final chosen definition presents information as “a state of awareness (consciousness) and the physical manifestations they form” (Zins, 2007, p. 482). While all descriptions differ in wording, they have uniting features linking information to context and the cognitive mind of the perceiver. Thus, while data is seen outside of context, information exists in one’s mind and is supplemented by the environment’s features and other related facts.
Knowledge
Finally, the last term of the three considered is knowledge, which is placed as the third step on the pyramid based on several definitions. For example, knowledge is defined as a process “when people supply meaning to information” (Davis & Shaw, 2011, p. 12). Similar to how information is based on data in previous descriptions, knowledge further expands information by creating meaning. Notably, the existence of context and its use in meaning creation is what separates information from knowledge in the definitions provided by Davis and Shaw (2011). Therefore, the processes of collecting facts and analyzing them are shown as separate steps.
Other definitions seem to focus on similar points when presenting knowledge. For example, knowledge can be described as “a cognitive/affective state that finds definition in meaning and understanding” (Zins, 2007, p. 482). From another viewpoint, knowledge is “the general understanding and awareness” created through information gathering, and it is based on one’s experience and the use of context (Zins, 2007, p. 481). Finally, most interpretations of knowledge highlight its subjective and collective nature – it “exists in the mind of the knower” (Zins, 2007, p. 481). Based on these definitions, it is apparent that knowledge requires a deeper understanding of context as well as previous instances of information analysis.
Synthesized Definitions
The definitions described above can be used to create synthesized versions of the three terms. First, data is a basic type of perceived facts devoid of context or any deeper understanding analysis. Therefore, data is separate facts gathered by observation through one’s visual and other senses. Next, it appears that most definitions view information using the cognitive or socio-cognitive paradigm, denying the idea that it can be entirely objective or physical. Moreover, the main characteristics of this term are the presence of context and some application of analysis. Thus, information can be defined as data that develops in one’s cognitive system with the help of context and human intention. Finally, the main traits of knowledge are its complexity, analysis, and meaningfulness. Knowledge is the process of understanding and explaining the information that happens in the knower’s mind. These definitions combine the concepts provided in the reviewed publications, featuring their most notable features.
References
Davis, C. H., & Shaw, D. (Eds.). (2011). Introduction to information science and technology. American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Zins, C. (2007). Conceptual approaches for defining data, information, and knowledge. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 58(4), 479-493.