Current Theory in Library and Information Science

Citation

Cornelius, I. (2003), "Current Theory in Library and Information Science", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 612-615. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310499627

William McGrath's opening observation that “Whatever theory is, it is many things to many people” sets the tone and promise of this collection. A wide‐ranging but disparate collection of papers that tend to concentrate on the study of quantifiable objects show that empirical studies, at least for this editor, still hold centre stage in the development of theory in library and information science. Professor McGrath is dismal about the state of theory in the field (“In Library and Information Science (LIS), there is little formal theory to agree or disagree on” (p. 309), and dismissive of theory outside the “exact” sciences (“In the arts and humanities, there are as many theories (perhaps better denoted as opinions) as individuals, with universal disagreement’, p. 309). Both drowning and starved, Professor McGrath turns to the Oxford English Dictionary for a definition of theory, and leaves us with his dictum that “To this author, theory is an explanation for a quantifiable phenomenon [sic]’ (p. 310). He nails us to an unintentionally ambiguous view of the intention of the papers in the collection by observing that:

The oft‐heard remark that something is “only a theory” seems to suggest that theory, by definition, is something less than credible, meaningful, or valid and that only something “factual” can be believed. The papers in this issue are far more than factual. All are attempts to extract or impose meaning from highly complex phenomena from the universe of information, its processing, and use (p. 310).

Neither meaning nor validity are concepts explored or explained by the editor, and their casual introduction and subsequent neglect suggests that, for the editor at least, some of the issues that rest at the heart of academic investigation remain unknown territory.

The uncertainty is emphasized by the choice of preposition in the title. This is not “theory for”, or “theory of”, but theory in LIS. There is no claim that the papers offer any comprehensive theoretical approach to the whole field of LIS, or that they are anything more than a gathering up of some current research activity. The reference to “current” theory suggests that there is some theory no longer current. We are left to work out for ourselves whether this latter theory is still valid or has been superseded.

There seems to be no concept of any coherent theoretical universe of LIS to inform the whole collection, and consequently no rationale about what might constitute the problems or methods of the field. Indeed the editor has been refreshingly open and hospitable about what might be included, and whatever strictures might apply to the conception of the whole issue need not apply to the individual contributions. It must be said, however, that the promise of the title is sparingly delivered: most of the contributions are either reviews of theory or applications of research methods.

Those in the first part of the collection, labelled about theory by the editor include a useful summary by Smiraglia of developments in the theory of knowledge organization. In particular I like the way the author ties in the developments he is discussing with more general epistemological developments, linking the progress first to pragmatism and then to empiricism and finally mentioning rationalist and historicist influences. The lament of McKechnie and Pettigrew from their content analysis of theories in articles in LIS journals that “LIS theories had not made substantial inroads in other disciplines” may be partly attributable to a failure by other authors to follow Smiraglia's practice of linking LIS theory to discussions of theory in the social sciences and humanities. If LIS is to be recognized as a constituent member of, say, the social sciences, then at some level we must use the same language and engage in the same theoretical debates. It is not as if there has been no discussion of theory, method, and philosophy in the social sciences, or that such discussions are irrelevant to LIS.

Any discussion of current theoretical problems in LIS would have to make those connexions and address those issues. Other papers in this “about theory “subset include an update by Glazier and Glover on their 1986 taxonomy of theory in the form of a model for theory building, a useful summary and selective review by Bar‐Ilan and Peritz of bibliometric and informetric of research using data from and about the Internet, and a review of recent LIS research that might help develop a unified theory for librarianship by McGrath.

The second group of papers shows a concentration on bibliometric problems and must be commended for showing a wide range of methods. They are really not theory papers, and should be valued for their contribution to method. To regard method as coterminous with theory is a sleight of hand that is not explained away by Professor McGrath's genial assertion that this group of papers “are theory” (p. 313). McGrath tells us that all these papers present unique and original theory. This can hardly be so. Gestalt theory (Kretschmer) can hardly be called new; it is not even original to apply it to the field of LIS. Kretschmer develops a mathematical model to test the validity of the conciseness principle in social systems. Fuzzy set theory is not new, even in LIS, though we can welcome Hood and Wilson's paper as a useful tutorial on its use.

The Matthew effect is not new, although Bonitz's application of it to countries is an interesting extension. Tsai's idea of information genetics is an interesting attempt to establish a model to account for the generation of information. This reader felt, however, that the model as explained by Tsai was close to being more complex than what it was trying to model. This could be forgiven if we gained some special insight or understanding from the application of the model, but it seems (p. 548) the model just provides ‘sources and guidelines for the establishment of various types of governance for many kinds of activities in the information universe’ – a rather vague result from a complex mechanistic operation.

Glänzel gives a bibliometric study of co‐authorship, showing that although “copublication activity has grown considerably, the extent of co‐authorship and its relation with productivity and citation impact largely varies among fields” (p. 461). Rousseau provides an overview of journal evaluation indicators, cautioning that although generalized impact factors over a longer time period than the usual two years (p. 432) are better indicators of the long‐term value of a journal. Care must be exercised when considering impact factors as an indicator of quality. Moed, Luwel, and Nederhof describe a general methodology for developing bibliometric performance indicators.

If we pass over the problem of confusing theories with models then Vinckler's scientometric model to account for the institutionalization of scientific knowledge is the most interesting application in the whole collection, though once again the reader will be disappointed by the concentration upon quantifiable criteria to develop understanding of the institutionalisation process, despite the author's reference to studies in the philosophy of science. Vinckler, like McGrath, seems to want the support of the analogue of physics. The process of institutionalisation, or elevation of a particular work or author to corpus status in a field, needs to use sociological or ethnographic arguments in parallel with any quantitative models. What is required in studies of such phenomena is not just an explanation or prediction but some understanding of what is happening. Without such basic understanding we cannot comprehend the nature or significance of what is being explained, nor will we know what phenomena we are looking at.

The editor understands this problem for his collection. In fact, the editor did not want what he has put together, writing that he “had envisaged a collection of theoretical essays more representative of the broader aspects of LIS” (p. 316). He then goes on to damn his contributors with faint praise, describing this as a “collection of worthy papers”. In the parting shot of the introduction he admits that “Still needed is a deeper understanding of theory and the fundamental sociologic forces driving LIS” (p. 316). Current efforts in the CoLIS series of conferences, recent articles on the socio‐cognitive aspects of LIS in ARIST, and other work in monographs have all contributed to this deeper understanding. How is it that all this work escaped the attention of Professor McGrath and the editorial board of Library Trends?

A forthcoming issue of Library Trends will be devoted to the philosophy of information: that volume may address some other concerns relevant to the current theory in LIS that are overlooked here. Meanwhile, we need not ignore the useful summaries, overviews, and updates, and the interesting examples of the practice of research, that are to be found in this collection.