Information Science Methods

Information Science Methods

Information science methods are the more or less formalized ways of collecting knowledge about phenomena in Library and Information Science (LIS).

Research methods in LIS may be contrasted with the professional methods that librarians and information specialists use in their daily work (methods for developing and organizing collections, helping users, search information and so on). There are methods for, for example, organizing documents and methods for doing research in knowledge organization.

The views of what kinds of methods are considered most fruitful are interrelated. If your basic theoretical orientation in knowledge organization is related to facet analysis, then your research methods should reflect this view and study the logical principles and structures in different systems. In this way are the research methods of LIS (or any other field) dependent on substantial theories in LIS. (It is a mistake of logical positivism to believe that the same methods should be applied to all fields).

Different approaches to LIS and subfields of LIS use different methods both "professional methods" and research methods. Library history uses historical methods, bibliometrics uses, for example author co-citation analysis, user studies uses questionnaires and interviews, information retrieval uses experiments (and test collections) etc.

The study of the methods of LIS is thus first and foremost connected to the specific subfields and approaches to LIS. In any field, including LIS are different views, approaches, positions etc. always at play. Some researchers prefer more quantitative approaches, other more qualitative approaches. Some study individual cognitive structures, other study knowledge domains. Whereas research methods are rather normative, research methodologies are less normative, rather descriptive and critical. Methodology is about the arguments for which methods to prefer (cf., Information Science methodology).

The philosopher John Dewey fought against many forms of dualism. I believe his arguments were relevant. It is important to avoid dualisms like, for example:

Quantitative methods versus qualitative methods
Empirical methods versus analytic methods
Research methods versus professional methods

Quantitative methods, for example, presupposes good qualitative analysis, why quantitative and qualitative methods are not opposites, but supplementary methods. The same is the case with empirical methods and analytic methods. If empirical methods are used in the absence of good analytic work, then the result is a production of trivial papers of limited value. If analytical methods are used in the absence of empirical data, then the produced knowledge becomes too abstract and unrelated to the phenomena under study.

Literature:

Ahlgren, P.; Jarneving, B. & Rousseau, R. (2004). Rejoinder: In defense of formal methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(10), 936-936.

Bar-Ilan J.; Peritz BC (2002). Informetric theories and methods for exploring the Internet: An analytical survey of recent research literature. Library Trends, 50(3), 371-392.

Busha, C. H. & Harter, S. P. (1980). Research methods in librarianship; techniques and interpretation. New York : Academic Press.

Crestani. F.; Dominich, S.; Lalmas, M. & van Rijsbergen, C. J. (2003). Mathematical, logical, and formal methods in information retrieval: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(4), 281-284.

Egghe, L. & Rousseau, R. (1990). Introduction to informetrics; quantitative methods in library, documentation, and information science. Amsterdam : Elsevier Science Publishers.

Eldredge, J. D. (2004). Inventory of research methods for librarianship and informatics. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(1), 83-90.

Hoad, T. C. & Zobel, J. (2003). Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 203-215.

Khan, M..A. (2004). Research Methods in Library and Information Science. India: Cosmo Pubns.

Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Martyn, J. & Lancaster, F. W. (1981). Investigative Methods in Library and Information Science. Arlington: Information Ressources Press.

Okoli C ; Pawlowski SD (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.

Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet.

Pors, N. O. (1992). Statistiske metoder. Introduktion for bibliotekarer. København: Danmarks Biblioteksskole.

Powell, R. R & Connaway, L. S. (2004). Basic research methods for librarians. 4th. ed. Westport, Conn. : Libraries Unlimited.

Szostak, R. (2003). Classifying scholarly theories and methods. Knowledge Organization, 30(1), 20-35.

Tudor-Silovic, N. & Mihel, I. (Eds. ). (1988). Information research; research methods in library and information science: proceedings of the International Seminar on Information Research, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, May 19-24, 1986. London: Taylor Graham.

Vaughan, L. (2001). Statistical Methods for the Information Professional. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Wildemuth, B. M. (2002). Effective methods for studying information seeking and use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(14), 1218-1222.

Williamson, K. (2002). Research methods for students, academics and professionals. Information management and systems. 2nd ed. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Charles Sturt University.

Wilson, T. (2000- ). Electronic Resources for Research Methods. http://informationr.net/rm/

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 23-03-2007

Home