Concept theory in library and information science: an epistemological analysis
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0195 |
| Pages | 876-891 |
| Date | 08 July 2019 |
| Published date | 08 July 2019 |
| Author | Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado,Daniel Martínez-Ávila,Maria da Graça de Melo Simões |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Concept theory in library and
information science: an
epistemological analysis
Luís Miguel Oliveira Machado
Department of Philosophy, Communication and Information,
Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Daniel Martínez-Ávila
Department of Information Science,
São Paulo State University (UNESP), Marilia, Brazil, and
Maria da Graça de Melo Simões
Department of Philosophy, Communication and Information,
Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information
science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and
discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the
texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically,
thepaperworkswithBardin’s contingency analysis and follows Hjørland’s families of epistemologies for
the categorization.
Findings –The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of
studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept
theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and
a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist
or historicist approaches.
Originality/value –This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on
concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this
paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.
Keywords Knowledge organizations, Knowledge organization
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
The organization of concepts and the development of knowledge organization systems
(KOS) cannot be dissociated from the historical aspects and the pragmatist values that affect
the epistemology of the library and information science (LIS) field. We understand KOS as
“a generic term used for referring to a wide range of items (e.g. subject headings, thesauri,
classification schemes and ontologies), which have been conceived with respect to different
purposes, in distinct historical moments. They are characterized by different specific
structures and functions, varied ways of relating to technology, and used in a plurality of
contexts by diverse communities”(Mazzocchi, 2018). KOS should be understood as systems
that organize concepts and their semantic relations (Hjørland, 2009). In this vein, any
concept theory would be framed within one of the following four epistemological “families:”
rationalism, empiricism, historicism, or pragmatism (Hjørland, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2009,
2017a). Within empiricism, concept theories would rely on the induction of concepts from
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 75 No. 4, 2019
pp. 876-891
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-11-2018-0195
Received 26 November 2018
Revised 14 March 2019
Accepted 17 March 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The author would like to thank the reviewers for the valuable comments.
876
JD
75,4
observations that are not theory-dependent, such as in the induction of clusters of similar
objects without any theory or hypothesis guiding their selection and matching; concept
theories in rationalism would rely on the deduction of concepts and sub-concepts from
primitive concepts and rules that are given a priori. Logical divisions of concepts and facet
analysis are characteristic traits of rationalist concept theories; concept theories within
historicism seek to comprehend the concepts considering their historical transformations.
This genealogical approach to concepts would define them in their cultural and social
contexts and reveal them as dependent on theories and discourses; pragmatist concept
theories would consider the goals, values, and consequences when defining concepts. In this
sense, pragmatism does not regard knowledge or the development of concepts to be neutral
as they are also theory-laden and fixated into the signs that best serve a given purpose. The
four epistemological families and the concept theories they embrace coexist competitively in
every domain of knowledge (Hjørland, 2009). The construction of KOS and the application of
concept theories to other areas of LIS will inevitably follow one of these epistemologies.
Although in the present paper we do not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of
these epistemological families and the different concept theories ascribed to them
(Hjørland, 2009, is a fine review within LIS), a quick non-systematic literature review
revealed the prevalence of rationalist approaches to the study of “concept”before 2010
(e.g. Motta, 1987; Dahlberg, 1992, 2009; Khoo and Na, 2006; Nonato, 2009)[1]. Several
studies published after 2010 suggested a greater diversity of approaches (e.g. Kobashi and
Francelin, 2011; Marradi, 2012; Derqui, 2014; Hjørland, 2015; Maculan and Lima, 2017).
From both periods, we also highlight two papers (Thornley and Gibb, 2009; Guedes and
Moura, 2016) whose approach, although related to the study of the concept, is focused on
theroleofthe“meaning”in LIS.
In spite of the diversity of approaches and theories that exist in LIS, knowledge
organization (KO) and classification (see Hjørland, 2016, 2017a, b, 2018a, b, respectively for
their discussion), according to Maculan and Lima (2017), there are two theories that are
commonly taken for granted and discussed in the LIS literature on concepts: Dahlberg’s
analytical concept theory and Ranganathan’s faceted classification theory. In these two
theories we can find, in the words of Kobashi and Francelin (2011, p. 15), “the premises of
normative effect for the organization of concepts in information retrieval systems.”
In this sense, these two theories have functioned as rationalist epistemological canons
for LIS, leading to the establishment of the analytical-synthetic approach as a model
(Dahlberg, 1972, 1978).
Ingetraut Dahlberg (1928–2017) is acknowledged to be one of the founders of the KO
field as we know it (Ohly, 2018), being one of her most famous contributions the “analytic,
object-related conceptual theory.”In the present paper, we aim to analyze the literature
that acknowledges the influence of Dahlberg’s concept theory in order to understand the
ways it has been understood and its impact in the KO/LIS field. Our objectives are: (i) to
present and discuss the epistemological bases of the concept theories, in particular
Dahlberg’s analytic-synthetic theory; (ii) to identify the literature on concept theory in
the database library and information science source (EBSCO); (iii) to analyze and classify
the epistemological approaches in those papers related to concept theory. We conducted a
qualitative descriptive/comparative study, following a hermeneutical approach in the
analysis of the texts, and using, in particular, a technique of categorical analysis
(Bardin, 2011; Kuckartz, 2014). The structure of the paper and the correspondence with the
objectives are as follows: after the introduction, we proceed with two subsections of
the introduction that address the objective (i); next, we present a description of the
methodology that is used in the empirical part of the study to address the objectives (ii)
and (iii); these aspects are also discussed in the third section of the paper; finally, we end
the paper with some final remarks.
877
Concept theory
in LIS
To continue reading
Request your trial