[Note: this is adapted from a posting for a doctoral seminar I am currently taking, but it made me think about where I would like to see LIS researcher headed]
The journal articles we have read in the last two weeks have both focused on the challenges facing research in the Library and Information Sciences.
In Budd’s article for Library Quarterly, An Epistomological Foundation For Library and Information Science, we learn that LIS research struggles to find an epistemology that addresses it’s needs and has historically adopted a positivist stance in a bid to be seen as a “real” field.
In Pettigrew and McKechnie’s 2001 article, The Use of Theory in Information Science Research in JASIST, we see that even when theory is viewed broadly (all you had to do was say you were using theory or use a key term), the instances of incorporating theory were relatively low. This is attributed, in part, to the fact that LIS research has grown out of a practical, professional field. It is practitioner based in the way that much other research is not.
Pettigrew and McKechnie defined theory so broadly incorporating not only direct references to theory but also any use of certain key terms that act as signifiers for theoretical constructs including “framework,” “grounding,” and “underpinnings” in an attempt to heed the warnings of Budd and avoid the historical positivist slant of LIS research. [Aside – as a new researcher, it was interesting to see how these two articles fit together and to begin to see which authors are often cited.]
Some of the findings of Pettigrew and McKechnie suggest a field that is still in it’s early stages and/or a field that is open to practitioners engaging in researcher resulting in articles that depart from accepted norms in other fields. In general, I think the acceptance of practitioners is a strength even when it results in challenges.
Pettigrew and McKechnie point out that authors frequently refer to theories without citing them, perhaps assuming that concepts such as Bates’ Berry Picking are common knowledge to anyone reading Library Quarterly. They also observe that authors occasionally would cite the theory back to a textbook or review article instead of an original source. To me, this sounds like the mistake a young researcher or a practitioner would make. It also seems like the type of thing an editor should catch. It is a bit shocking to me that a field devoted to studying information use would do such a poor job on such a foundational skill as citation. Indeed, for those engaged in school librarianship, teaching citation is one of our mandates. It is critical for practitioners and academics alike to lead by example and cite their articles fully and properly.
In their final paragraphs, Pettigrew and McKechnie set the agenda for future research in this area. I was amused to note that they point out that simply listing theories is not the same as engaging with a theory. Suggesting that Sutton and Straw’s 1995 article What Theory Is Not was not a “shot heard round the world” as one might hope.
All of this suggests to me a field that is still struggling with its place in academia. It is growing, but in fits and starts. It is seeking to establish its credibility, while in the midst of what appears to be tremendous change. As a new researcher, I am amazed at the range of fields contained in LIS and not at all surprised that the field struggles with growing pains. As a proud librarian, I wish we would stop pretending what we do and what we study should be approached in the same was as, say, Astronomy. To do so does a disservice to the work we do.
We need to stop being the kid in the back of gym class begging to be chosen. We need to make our own team and move on.
Budd, J. M. (1995). An epistemological foundation for library and information science. The Library Quarterly, 65(3), 295-318.
Pettigrew, K. W., & Mckechnie, L. (2002). The use of theory in information science research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 62-73.
