Current Theory in Library and Information Science

Citation

McMenemy, D. (2004), "Current Theory in Library and Information Science", Library Review, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 242-243. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530410531947

The themed issue approach taken by the publishers of Library Trends often provides a broad coverage of a particular aspect of library and information science. The particular theme of the Winter 2002 issue is “Current Theory in Library and Information Science.”

The disappointing aspect of the collection is the narrow definition of what constitutes theory, as the approach taken is overtly quantitative in its focus, despite the fact that of all disciplines, the people factor is as important in library and information science. In the introduction, William McGrath states that, “Whatever theory is, it is many things to many people”. The collection would have been accessible to more readers had he borne this in mind in the selection process for the articles. The quality of the articles is actually very good, and in their own right they are well researched and offer challenging topics for the reader to consider. As stand‐alone works they are certainly worth reading – as a collection they are extremely hard work. McGrath's obvious goal in the process is to challenge conventional thinking on the topic, and one thing the collection does is make you think. By his own admission, “some [papers] require careful and patient reading to comprehend them, but the effort is rewarding for those who try”.

The first article by Glazier and Grover proposes what could be a taxonomy on theory in library and information science, building on an earlier work from the same authors in the mid‐1980s. Ironically, they argue that theory building is, “surrounded by a complex of social and psychological contexts”, reinforcing the need to treat the topic in its widest possible sense. William McGrath's own contribution to the collection is a philosophical piece on the need to look to the scientific greats such as Copernicus and Einstein for inspiration in building a unified theory on librarianship. This is certainly a thoughtful piece and McGrath's arguments are grand, but nonetheless worthy.

An interesting piece by McKechnie and Pettigrew looks at the use of the term “theory” via a content analysis of selected library and information science journals over a 5‐year period in the mid‐1990s. The findings of this paper suggested that over 34 per cent of articles in the period used the term, although the definition of the term in the project is in its widest possible sense. Again, this would seem justification for the term to be treated as such in any collection of articles deeming to cover the concept.

Later articles deal with issues such as co‐authorship patterns and research performance. One of the articles on co‐authorship (Glanzel) is of particular interest for readers interested in indexing or information retrieval, as it discusses the implications in terms of formulating more accurate search strategies. In a later paper, Tsai offers a theory for information genetics. He argues that the generation of information needs to be understood in its basic context by all information professionals to enable a total quality knowledge management structure to be put in place.

While I found none of the papers particularly inspiring, for researchers or practitioners interested in the field there are many papers worth seeking out. The disappointment is that, unfortunately, the sum of the parts makes the collection less attractive to the general LIS population, surely part of the target market if the debate regarding the use of theory in LIS is to be taken up widely. As the editor himself states, “still needed is a deeper understanding of theory and the fundamental sociological forces driving LIS and a volume of literature to elucidate this need”. For all that it is worthy and thought provoking, on reading the assortment of papers, one cannot help but feel that this particular collection was a missed opportunity to address that very need.