Information science, theory of

We may tentatively define "theory" as a set of assumptions used to analyze or explain the nature of a set of phenomena (see also Theory (Epistemological lifeboat). 

 

Theories in Library and Information Science (LIS) may be explicit or implicit, and they are often connected to broader views, approaches, "metatheories" or "paradigms" (see Position and related concepts in Epistemological lifeboat). LIS may, for example, be approached from a technological point of view or from a cultural point of view. Such background views may influence all specific concepts in ways that are not thought of or made explicit. That theories are implicit means that they are used without their users express or are aware that this is the case. In a field in which technological and practical considerations are more dominant than intellectual considerations the theoretical underpinnings may be rather chaotic. As described in the entry on Behaviorism in LIS a theoretical orientation may be much more influential than is being recognized in a field (and researchers would probably change their view if they became aware of the implications of their view).

 

Fisher, Erdelez & McKechnie (2005) is a book presenting 72 theories of information behavior.

These 72 ”theories” are in no way exhaustive of theories in LIS. Also many of them are not theories at all and some are not theories of LIS but of some other disciplines. It is also unclear how ”information behavior” is delimited from the rest of LIS. Nonetheless is the book valuable in its attempt to presents the theories in our field and it also contains some valuable introductory chapters.

 

In order to identify the theories of LIS, we must consider when a given term is a theory term, and when it is a term specifying a phenomenon in LIS. Concepts such as "library anxiety", "small world networks", "Web information behavior" and "World wide web information seeking" (which are discussed in Fisher, Erdelez & McKechnie, 2005) are in my opinion not theories but research areas to which different theories may be applied.

 

Often are there difficult interrelations between research fields on the one hand and theories (or metatheories) on the other hand. For example is Information Retrieval (IR) mostly understood as a field in LIS (as well as a sub field of computer science). IR can, however, be understood both as a tradition or approach in LIS, which has certain  theoretical presumptions (mainly based on experiments with algorithms based on term frequencies in texts). It can also be understood as any approach concerned with storage and retrieval of information as this is done, for example, in encyclopedias. This difference become clear when somebody use the term based on another theoretical framework than the usual. So did Stockwell (2000): A History of Information Storage and Retrieval. Stockwell's book is mostly about encyclopedias. It is certainly not about the research tradition known as information retrieval. In this way is IR both a field (to which many different theories can be applied) and it is also a tradition based on a particular theoretical outlook.

 

Bates (2005) presents 13 metatheories in Library and Information Science (LIS):

  1.  A historical approach.

  2.  A constructivist approach

  3.  A constructionist or discourse-analytic approach

  4.  A philosophical-analytical approach.

  5.  A critical theory approach.

  6.  An ethnographic approach.

  7.  A socio-cognitive approach.

  8.  A cognitive approach.

  9.  A bibliometric approach.

  10.  A physical approach.

  11.  An engineering approach.

  12.  A user-centered design approach.

  13.  An evolutionary approach.

 

Williams & Kim (1975, p. 7) wrote: "The information science literature makes reference to a series of laws such as Bradford's law and Zip's law. What is the general theory that either gives rise to these laws or has been derived from them? No one seems to be concerned about finding answers to this question...".
 

Gregor (2006) is an essay about the nature of theory in information systems.  The paper addresses issues of causality, explanation, prediction, and generalization that underlie an understanding of theory. A taxonomy is proposed that classifies information systems theories with respect to the manner in which four central goals are addressed: analysis, explanation, prediction, and prescription. Five interrelated types of theory are distinguished: (1) theory for analyzing, (2) theory for explaining, (3)  theory for predicting, (4) theory for explaining and predicting, and (5) theory for design and action. Examples illustrate the nature of each theory type. The applicability of the taxonomy is demonstrated by classifying a sample of journal articles. The paper contributes by showing that multiple views of theory exist and by exposing the assumptions underlying different viewpoints. In addition, it is suggested that the type of theory under development can influence the choice of an epistemological approach. Support is given for the legitimacy and value of each theory type. The building of integrated bodies of theory that encompass all theory types is advocated.

 

 

 

to be edited:
Informationsvidenskaben mangler i høj grad en overordnet teori, der kan bringe sammenhæng i faget og give retning for forskningen. Som det fremgår andre steder i dette leksikon, har informationsvidenskaben i høj grad lænet sig op ad *infor­mationsteknologien og dens *informations­begreb og *informationsteori. Dette har været een teoretisk tendens, hvor usikker og utilfredsstillende, den end har været følt. En anden teoretisk tendens har været en sociologisk opfattelse af brugere, af videnskabelig kommunika­tion m.v. Bibliometrien kan ses som een metode under denne tendens. Der har også været en tendens til at se på *viden eller *informa­tions­­strukturer (f.eks. *forældelse, *spredning, *kumulering etc.), men da udfra en meget *positivistisk (og ureflekteret) vidensopfattelse.

En nyere tendens har været det kognitive paradigme, hvor den teoretiske in­spira­tion har ligget i *kunstig intelligens og kognitiv psykologi - iøvrigt hermed atter en linie indirekte tilbage til infor­mation­s­teorien. Det er denne forfatters opfattelse, at alle teorier i informationsvidenskaben (incl. det *fysiske paradigme) har implicitte eller eksplicitte antagelser om kognitive processer, d.v.s. kan karakteriseres ud fra deres teori om kognition. Det fysiske paradigme repræsenterer en *empiristisk­/*positi­vis­tisk tilgang, det *kognitive paradigme repræsenterer en rationalistisk tilgang, "det kognitive synspunkt" en videreudvikling af det *kognitive paradigme med inddragelse af en *hermeneutisk synsvinkel, *semiotikken og *domæneana­lyse/det *sociologisk videnskabsteoretiske paradigme repræsenterer varianter indenfor *pragmatiske, *realistiske og *materialistiske opfattelser.

Contemporary Horizons in IR
A. Paradigmer behandlet i Ellis, 1990 Statistical and Probalistic Retrieval Cognitive User Modelling Expert Intermediary Systems Associations, Relations and Hypertext (Citation Based Retrieval Techniques)
B. Paradigmer præsenteret på ASIS-konferencen Oktober 1993 In a session entitled "Debating Different Approaches to Studying the Organization of Information" at the ASIS 56th Annual Meeting October 27., 1993. The formulations were: Ling Hwey Jeng, UCLA: "The Object Paradigm: the path to understanding how information should be organized is to analyze the nature of common information objects themselves". Donald Case, UCLA: "The Cognitive Paradigm: the best way to approach the organization of information is to study how people think and to mimic those regularities of thought". Nicholas Belkin, Rutgers University: "The Behavioral Paradigm: the best method for studying how information should be organized is to observe how people interact with potential sources". Brenda Dervin, Ohio State University: "The Communication Paradigm: The best way to understand information is to study information-seeking and use communicatively, examining how people constructs questions and create answers to these questions". (Her citeret fra "the Conference program", side 22).


In a session on domain-analysis, a formulation was: Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen: "The domain-analytic paradigm" is a theoretical approach to Information Science (IS), which states, that the best way to understand information in IS is to study the knowledge-domains as "discourse communities", which are parts of the society's division of labour. Knowledge organi­zation, -structure, cooperation patterns, language and communication forms, information systems and relevance criteria are reflections of the objects of the work of these communities and of their role in society. The individual person's psychology, knowledge, information needs, and subjective relevance criteria should be seen in this perspective.


Teoriens patologi
Buckland (1991, pp. 22-23) redegør for sin opfattelse for, hvorledes informations­videnskabens teori har været patologisk. Han nævner, at der er en enorm kontrast mellem små underområder som bibliometri, der - fordi de er lette at gå til og lette at undersøge med kvantitative metoder - har fået en helt uforholdsmæssig stor plads i faget. På tilsvarende måde er der forsket meget i ir-systemers ydelser uden at de grundlæggende definitioner af relevans er ordentligt udredt. Endelig nævner han, at der er gjort meget for at optimere computer-arkitektur, men næsten intet for at optimere valget mellem informations­tjenester i et givent socialt eller organisatorisk miljø.

Efter denne forfatters [BH] opfattelse, hænger fagets teoretiske armod sammen med et dilemma mellem det ydre formelle og det indre indholdsmæssige, mellem det generelle og det domænespeci­fik­ke. (Jfr. *vidensdomæner). På trods af, at informationsvidenskaben har udspring fra videnskabelig kommunikation og -dokumentation, har faget aldrig haft nogen væsentlig forbindelseslinie til videnskabs­teori m.v. Et begreb som kilder (retskilder, historiske kilder, videnskabelige kilder) indgår stort set ikke i informations­videnskabens ballast (Jfr. også *dokumenter). Fordi det virker absurd at beskæftige sig med alle enkeltfag eller *vidensdomæner, har man veget helt udenom, og kun forsøgt at skabe teorier, der helt så bort fra det ind­holdsmæssige, der reduktionistisk kun ser fællestrækkene, og herved enten bliver til ren *datalogi eller forarmes til det absurde. Den kognitivistiske tendens i faget kan måske også ses på denne baggrund: Hvis man ikke ved noget om videnskabelig viden (og tror, man ikke kan komme til det), er det bekvemt at tage udgangspunkt i brugernes individuelle subjektive opfattelse. Men det er meget ejendommeligt at have et teorigrundlag, der siger, at hvis man vil lave en database over svenske byer, så ser man ikke på videnskabens (geografiens) resultater, men på brugernes opfattelse af, om København er hovedstad i Stockholm. Såfremt man erkender dette, har man mulighed for at opbygge en informationsvidenskabelig teori på en kvalificeret rea­lismes grundlag. Informationsvidenskaben undersøger informations­strukturer, informationssøgning etc., men ikke reduktionistisk, derimod udgør informationsvidenskaben en generalisering eller syntese af forhold i enkelte vidensdomæner. I forvejen studeres fag, videnskaber og -domæner af filosofi og videnskab­steori, der herved bliver nærmeste grænseområder. Erkendelsesteoretiske og videnskabsteo­retiske betragtningsmåder har implikationer m.h.t. informations­videnskabens grundbegreber (*emne; *relevans etc) og for den indre orden i og opbygning af databaser m.v. Een af grundene til, at informations­videnskaben ikke har haft en ordentlig forbindelse til filosofi, er at filosofien selv har været i krise under positivismen: Positivismen mente ikke, at en filosofi kunne etablere noget, som de empiriske videnskaber ikke selv kunne skabe bedre selv. I dag har filosofien genvundet sin betydning, den har vist, at man på et generaliseret niveau kan beskæftige sig med spørgsmål om enkeltvidenskaber uden at være ekspert i alle enkeltvidenskaber. Dette udgør håbet og grundlaget for, at også informations­videnskaben kan beskæftige sig med almene informationsproblemer uden at reduceres til amatørdatalo­gi.
 

En teori er en systematisk ordnet mængde af udsagn om et genstandsfelt.

Teori tilhører en familie af begreber, hvortil også hører f.eks. hypotese (antagelse eller formodning), *paradigme (rammeteori), empirisk generalisering og deduktivt system. I modsætning til en hypotese, er en teori afprøvet i forskerkollektivet, og har således status af en kollektivt accepteret antagelse, men er naturligvis ikke derved identisk med evidens, fakta eller lov.

Indenfor kognitiv videnskab arbejder nogle forskere udfra den antagelse, at *vidensdomæner har karakter af teorier, og at f.eks. børns begrebs­ind­læring ligner videnskabs­folks begrebsindlæring. Denne teori betegner Gopnik & Wellman (1994) som "The theory theory", og samme teori gør sig gældende i Hjørlands *"domæne­analyse", jfr. f.eks. Hjørland, 1993, f.eks. i analysen af begrebet *informations­behov. D.v.s. når psykologer f.eks. studerer børns begrebsudvikling, når informationsforskere studerer brugeres informationsbehov og når videnskabs­teoretikere studerer forskeres problemløsning, så er der dybest set tale om samme type problemer og processer. Heri ligger den dybe betydning af teori (herunder *videnskabsteori) for *informationsvidenskaben.
 

 

 


Literature:

 


 


 

 

 

 


Literature:

 

Bates, M. J. (2005). An introduction to metatheories, theories, and models. IN: Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S. & McKechnie, L. (eds.). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today. (Pp. 1-24).

 

Brookes, B. C. (1981). The foundations of information science. Part IV. Information Science: The changing paradigm. Journal of Information Science, 3(1), 3-12.

 

Brown, A. D. (1987). Toward a theoretical information science: information science and the concept of a paradigm. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. (Occational Publications Series Number five).
 

Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information and Information Systems. New York: Greenwood. 
 

Crowley, B. Spanning the Theory-Practice Divide in Library & Information Science. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

 

Ellis, D. (1990) New Horizons in information retrieval. London: Library Association.
 

Ellis, David: Paradigms and proto-paradigms in information retrieval research (Pp. 165-186 in: Conceptions of Library and Information Science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. Ed. by Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham, 1992).
 

Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S. & McKechnie, L. (eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Contents ; Theories not covered by this book

 

Gopnik, A. & Wellman, H. M. (1994). The theory theory. (Chapter 10, pp. 257-293) IN: Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. & Susan A. Gelman (eds.): Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems.  MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.

 

Hjørland, B. (1993). Emnerepræsentation og informationssøgning. Et bidrag til en teori på kundskabsteoretisk grundlag. Göteborg: Valfrid.

 

Hjørland, B. (1997): Information Seeking and Subject Representation. An Activity-theoretical approach to Information Science. Westport & London: Greenwood Press.
 

Hjørland, B. (2002). Principia Informatica. Foundational Theory of Information and Principles of Information Services. IN: Emerging Frameworks and Methods. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Ed. By Harry Bruce, Raya Fidel, Peter Ingwersen, and Pertti Vakkari. Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA: Libraries Unlimited. (Pp. 109-121). (Click for manuscript) Principia Informatica.ppt

 

Ingwersen, P. (1992). Information Retrieval Interaction. London: Taylor Graham. Available at:  http://www.db.dk/pi/iri/files/Ingwersen_IRI.pdf

(Revised version of Intermediary Functions in Information Retrieval Interaction. Ph.d. Thesis. København: Handelshøjskolen, Det økonomiske Fakultet, Institut for Informatik og Økonomistyring, March 1991). 
 

Miksa, F. L. (1992). Library and information science: two paradigms. Pp 229-252 IN: Conceptions of Library and Information Science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. Ed. by Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham.

 

Stockwell , F. (2000). A History of Information Storage and Retrieval. Jefferson, North Caroling: McFarland & Company. 
 

Williams, J. G. & Kim, C. (1975). On Theory Development in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(1), 3-9.

See also: Behaviorism in LIS; Cognitive paradigm; Domain analysis; Information Science; Information Science methodology; Information Science structure; Information; Information theory;  Laws in information sciences ; Physical paradigm; Semiotics; Sense-making theory;

 

Information science, theory (cluster)

 

Birger Hjørland

Last edited: 04-02-2007

Home