Applied Library and Information Science (Theory-Practice relations)
It is almost a truism that research should be useful (cf., applied science). This is of course also the case with research done within Library and Information Science (LIS).

Library and information practice may be based on other kinds of knowledge than knowledge produced within LIS understood as a knowledge producing field (or "science"). LIS professionals may, for example use knowledge developed in computer science, in management science as well as broader cultural knowledge or subject knowledge and many other kinds of knowledge. Concerning subject knowledge may LIS professionals be compared with teaching staff: Teachers need knowledge in the fields they are teaching in addition to knowledge about teaching developed in educational science. In order to understand the problems of applicability of LIS research it should be recognized that schools of LIS used to be professional schools teaching a broad curriculum. During the second half of the 20th century they changed to be institutions or departments of LIS with university status. (The Royal School of Library and Information Science (RSLIS) in Copenhagen, for example, got University status in 1990). The development of the field of LIS as a research field is of course a process influenced by different views and interests. Such views may have different implications about the development of knowledge, which is useful for practice. In the further development of the field we may of course reflect on the usefulness of the research done so far.

Whether or not research in LIS is actually useful for practical librarianship and information management may be examined. Saracevic & Dalbello (2003), for example, have made an investigation which demonstrated that this seems not always to be the case. They conclude: "A brief answer is this: We believe that presently, digital library research and digital library practice are conducted by and large mostly independent of each other, minimally informing each other, and having slight, or no connection".

In LIS it has been claimed that Bradford's law of scattering provides a way to solve an important practical problem in libraries: How to select journals. As discussed by Hjørland & Nicolaisen (2005) may this claim be based on problematic premises. What is most useful for practice: To have a "practical" way to select journals, or to know that this will not do? Naïvity and lack of critical investigation may at first seem very efficient, but mostly turns out to be contra-productive. Therefore, any field, also LIS, need a strong and healthy knowledge-base from which practical decisions can be made. If a field has  been driven by short sighted goals for a long time, its knowledge base may fall into decay.

The aim of research is not just to be used in one professional domain. The aim of research is also to be used in other fields of research (and by other professions). Cronin & Pearson (1990) are investigation another form of "use" of LIS-research by examining how information science is cited (and thus in a way used) in journals of other disciplines.

What are the relations between the work done by library and information professionals on the one hand and on the other hand LIS as a research discipline (or multidisciplinary field)? Should library and information professionals be understood as applying research in LIS? (as applied LIS?).

This question is parallel to similar professions such as teachers and nurses. Today these professions have also research based educations.  There is, however, an essential difference between such fields on the one hand, and, say, computer science on the other hand. 

Literature:

Batten, W. E. (Ed.). (1975). Information science applied. London: Aslib.

Blumstein, A. (1972). Information Systems Application in the Criminal Justice System. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 7, 471-495.
 

Booth, A. & Brice, A. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based practice for information professionals : a handbook. London : Facet Publishing. 

Caceres, C. A. & Weihrer, A. L. (1971). Information science application in medicine. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 6, 325-367.

Cronin, B. & Pearson, S. (1990). The Export of Ideas from Information Science. Journal of Information Science, 16(6), 381-391.

Crowley, B. (2004). Spanning the Theory-Practice Divide in Library and Information Science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Click for table of contents. Review: http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/backissues2005a/crlnov05/crowleyreview.htm

Hjørland, B. & Nicolaisen, J. (2005). Bradford’s Law of Scattering: Ambiguities in the Concept of "Subject". IN: Crestani, F. & Ruthven, I. (Eds.): CoLIS 2005, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, pp. 96 – 106. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.  http://www.db.dk/binaries/bradford%5Fcolis5.pdf

Lebovits, I. (1989). The increasing role of librarians in the study and application of information science. IATUL Quarterly, 3(1), 27-33.

Raben, J. & Widmann, R. L. (1972). Information Systems Application in the Humanities. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 7, 439-469.

Saracevic, T. and Dalbello, M. (2003). Digital library research and digital library practice: How do they inform each other? An unpublished study. http://web.archive.org/web/20040727024312/http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/Saracevic_Dalbello_DLib_02.doc

Spang-Hanssen, Henning: Anvendt og uanvendt lingvistik. Sprogvidenskabelige arbejdspapirer fra Københavns Universitet, 1991/1992, 1, 1-11.

See also: Applied science (Epistemological lifeboat); Evidence based practice and LIS

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 18-01-2007

Home

to be edited:

Anvendelse af hvad?
Hvis man tænker på fagområder som f.eks. edb, bibliometri og andre "kontante" teknikker eller vidensområder, kan man tale om, at disse fag og teknikker anvendes indenfor forskellige områder, f.eks. sundhedssystemet, juraen eller i humaniora. Der har derfor været en tilbøjelighed til - f.eks. i oversigtsværket "Annual Review of Information Science and Technology" at betragte faglige eller vidensmæssige domæner som anvendelsesområder for informationsvidenskaben (jfr. referen­celisten). Denne opfattelse er imidlertid problematisk. En musikbibliotekar er således ikke en bibliotekar, der anvender eller applikerer en biblioteks- og informationsvidenskabelig viden på musikom­rådet. En musikbibliotekar beskæftiger sig med at formidle musik og musiklitteratur, med at optimere udnyttelsen af dokumenter indenfor musikom­rådet. Der er ikke tale om en udvendig viden, der applikeres på musik, men om en særlig viden, der bl.a. vedrører faget musiks informationsstrukturer. Denne viden kan man ikke erhverve ved at studere "ren musik" og "ren informationsvidenskab" og herefter kombinere sin viden, ligeså lidt som man kan studere kinesisk medicin ved at læse en bog om Kina og een om medicin og herefter "kombinere sin viden". Viden om fag og om faglige informations­strukturer kan i en vis udstrækning generaliseres. Videnskab­s­teori og filosofi udgør således een form for generaliseret faglig viden. Almen informations­videnskab udgør en form for generaliseret viden om infor­mationsfor­midling: En viden, der ikke er i modstrid med viden om informationsfor­midling i enkeltfag, men som forsøger overordnede synteser om informationsfor­midling (herunder bl.a. karakteristika ved informations­formidling i fag, der er præget af en *kumulativ litteratur, versus fag, der ikke er det). En syntese af viden om enkeltfags informationspro­blemer er noget andet en en reduktion af informationspro­blemerne til det, der er det fælles for fagene. En sådan reduktionisme karakteriserer de bestræbelser, der ser bort fra indholdet i det formidlede, som kun interesserer sig for formelle forhold. Det er især datalogien, der beskæftiger sig med informations­formidling under bortseen fra informationens semantiske aspekt (jfr. *information).

Nogle gange støder man på betegnelsen "anvendt informationsvidenskab" brugt som betegnelse på problemstillinger som informationssøgning, dokumentregistrering, emne­data­systemer m.v. Denne anvendelse af begrebet er også uheldig, idet disse om­råder jo vedrører informations­videnskabens kerneområder, de konstituerer i høj grad faget. I og med informationsvidenskab - også den mere teoretiske del - jo i høj grad sigter mod at løse informationsmæssige problemer af praktisk art, er afgrænsningen mellem teoretisk og anvendt informationsvidenskab meget flydende.

Anvendt informationsvidenskab må defineres som informationsvidenskabelige problemstillinger, der ikke udspringer af videnskabens interne problemer, men er stillet af eksterne krav. (Det er samme definition, man f.eks. anvender i anvendt lingvistik, jfr. Spang-Hanssen, 1991, hvori fremhæves, at anvendt forskning ikke er det samme som anvendelser af forskning). Tilpasninger af løsninger til nye teknologi­ske muligheder vil typisk være anvendt forskning, hvorimod løsninger af problemer indenfor specifikke *vidensdomæner typisk vil kræve teoretisk forskning i det pågældende domænes *informations­struktur, erkendelsesinteresser o.a.

Som det fremgår af artiklen *"datalogi, teoretisk", så er der en væsensforskel mellem datalogiens og informationsvidenskabens relationer mellem teori og praksis: Hvor den teoretiske datalogi har taget udgangspunkt i en teknik og i videnskabelige principper, for derefter at gå ud i verden for at finde anvendelsesområder for sin teknik og sine principper, forholder det sig modsat med informations­videnskaben. Her har man i højere grad taget udgangspunkt i praksis og forsøger at finde videnskabelige principper, der kan underbygge og udvide denne praksis.