Abhishek Yadav

This study provides a bibliometric analysis of the DESIDOC journal of library and information technology during 2012–2022. Research data for this study has been exported from the SCOPUS database. A total of 638 articles published during the study period were analyzed to determine the most cited articles, most prolific author, growth of publication, occurrence of keywords, citation pattern, and authorship pattern. To visualize the occurrence of keywords and the co-citation of the author network, Vosviewer software was used. This study also reveals that bibliometric, scientometrics, e-resource, and citation analysis are the most prolific research areas.

Dennett (_Synthese,_ _53_(2), 159–180, 1982, 1991, _Journal of Consciousness Studies,_ _10_(9–10), 19–30, 2003, _Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences,_ _6_, 247–270, 2007 ) proposes and defends a method called _heterophenomenology_. Heterophenomenology is a method to study consciousness _from a third-person objective point of view_ as opposed to a first-person subjective point of view or (auto)-phenomenology. The method of heterophenomenology serves a necessary role in Dennett’s schema of bridging the gap between the manifest and the scientific image of the world. In this paper, I attempt to present a limited critique of the method of heterophenomenology. The objection raised in this paper is limited to one of the steps involved in the method, i.e., the interpretation of the heterophenomenological text as analogous to novelist fiction. I attempt to show that the assumptions made by Dennett about the interpretation of fiction are contradictory in nature and therefore the same cannot be applied to the interpretation of a heterophenomenological text. The assumptions fail in justifying the interpretation of fiction itself and hence exporting them by analogy to interpret a heterophenomenological text is a mistake.