Comments on the articles and proposals for further work
| Published date | 01 February 2005 |
| Pages | 156-163 |
| Date | 01 February 2005 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578069 |
| Author | Birger Hjørland |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
AFTERWORD
Comments on the articles and
proposals for further work
Birger Hjørland
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the
present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed.
Design/methodology/approach – Examines articles in this issue.
Findings – Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist
epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within
library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology
and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions.
Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field.
Originality/value – The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates
concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.
Keywords Libraries, Information science, Philosophy,Epistemology
Paper type Viewpoint
In this issue we have had presentations of more than eight different epistemological
and methodological approaches that may have various potential for the imp rovement
of the theoretical and methodological foundations of library and information science
(LIS). Some important approaches have not been included, among them most notably
versions of feminist theory, critical theory, postmodernism, social constructivism and
systems theory. We hope that all those approaches may be brought into a dialogue and
that the strengths and weaknesses of each position will be further clarified and that
consequently LIS as a field will improve in both research and practice. Researchers and
teachers of LIS are the people who first and foremost should contribute to the
advancement of the theoretical foundations of our field. They are the primary target
group of this issue, and hopefully many will also be future contributors to the ongoing
dialogue.
It is important to emphasize that knowledge about different positions in the
philosophy of science is not an aim in itself. If a position has no potential to contribute
to the further development of LIS it is principally of no interest to us. Often families of
epistemologies have some common implications. If a new position should be
introduced into LIS, it should be demonstrated what new arguments this position is
capable of contributing compared with arguments that have already been put forward.
Also, I claim that if researcher Xis influenced by a particular position, then this should
somehow be visible in X’s publications. If a position makes no visible difference in
research output, then this position cannot be said to be important.
I will provide some comments and evaluations on the positions presented in this
issue in the hope that they may contribute to further dialogue and clarification. I have
decided to include some information on many of the positions, including references that
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
JDOC
61,1
156
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 61 No. 1, 2005
pp. 156-163
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220410510578069
To continue reading
Request your trial