“Isms” in information science: constructivism, collectivism and constructionism
| Pages | 79-101 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510578023 |
| Published date | 01 February 2005 |
| Date | 01 February 2005 |
| Author | Sanna Talja,Kimmo Tuominen,Reijo Savolainen |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
“Isms” in information science:
constructivism, collectivism and
constructionism
Sanna Talja
The University of Tampere Centre for Advanced Study (UTACAS),
The Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere,
Tampere, Finland
Kimmo Tuominen
Library of Parliament, Helsinki, Finland, and
Reijo Savolainen
Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
Abstract
Purpose – Describes the basic premises of three metatheories that represent important or emerging
perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge formation in information science:
constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism.
Design/methodology/approach – Presents a literature-based conceptual analysis. Pinpoints the
differences between the positions in their conceptions of language and the nature and origin of
knowledge.
Findings – Each of the three metatheories addresses and solves specific types of research questions
and design problems. The metatheories thus complement one another. Each of the three metatheories
encourages and constitutes a distinctive type of research and learning.
Originality/value – Outlines each metatheory’s specific fields of application.
Keywords Philosophy, Information science, Libraries
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Why bother with metatheories[1]? Gorman (2001, p. 24), for instance, takes the view
that “we cannot spend a great deal of time and effort on speculative enquiry” but
should seek to resolve the very serious practical problems that confront libraries,
librarians, and library users today. Solutions to practical questions are, however,
always developed on the basis of theoretical and epistemological assumption s. As
stated by Hjørland (2003a, p. 805), researchers and practitioners “cannot choose
between using a specific philosophical framework and not using any philosophical
framework”. Even the most rudimentary metadata solutions and information retrieval
algorithms are based on metatheoretical assumptions (Hjørland, 1998, p. 606).
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
This article is an extended and substantially modified version of a paper presented at the CoLIS 4
Conference (Tuominen et al., 2002).
The authors wish to thank Marcia Bates, Jenna Hartel, Birger Hjørland, and the anonymous
referees for comments that greatly helped to specify the arguments presented in the article.
“Isms” in
information
science
79
Accepted 27 August 2004
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 61 No. 1, 2005
pp. 79-101
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220410510578023
Gorman (2001) discusses issues such as preserving and cataloguing documents,
creating and maintaining bibliographic control on the web, using and disseminati ng
scholarly articles, reading in a digital age, the digital divide and librarians’ core
competencies. Each of these issues can be understood, defined and approached in
diverse ways from diverse perspectives. The chosen viewpoint affects both the
definition of the problems to be solved and the solutions proposed[2]. The value of
metatheoretical research lies in that it potentially offers tools for identifying and
considering a wider range of theoretical orientations and options for developing
practical technological solutions. Proposing novel suggestions and frameworks for
design and evaluation is how research in information science (IS) should contribute.
The fact that IS has evolved into a complex interdisciplinary research field naturally
poses problems for attempts to define its major paradigms. In this article, we compare
the basic premises of the three metatheories that represent currently important or
emerging perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge organisation
in IS. We label these metatheories constructivism, collectivism and constructionism,
and focus on five major questions:
(1) By which criteria can constructivism, collectivism and constructionism be
identified as divergent metatheories in IS?
(2) What are the basic assumptions of these metatheories, i.e. what kinds of
understandings concerning the nature of knowledge and language are they
based on?
(3) What kinds of criticisms have been presented of the basic assumptions of these
metatheories?
(4) How are these metatheories generally applied in IS research, i.e. what kinds of
research questions do they address?
(5) What unexplored application areas can be proposed for them?
Any description of metatheories deals with ideal types and operates on a high level
of abstraction. Thus, this review cannot do justice to the eloquent and detailed
argumentation of many papers referred to in the following pages. We try to capture
the essential qualities of each metatheory by focusing on the differences between
positions. A detailed analysis of the differences between unit theories and studies
within the outlined metatheoretical positions is beyond the scope of the present
paper.
As there can be no neutral viewpoint for describing metatheories, our point of
departure is constructionism, and our criteria for identifying metatheories reflect this
orientation. We assume, however, that constructionism provides a sufficiently broad
analytical framework for comparing epistemological assumptions, and also discuss the
problems and limitations of constructionism.
Mapping metatheories and their proponents
Our categorisation between “isms” in IS rests on the distinction between
constructivism, social constructivism and constructionism presented by Gergen
(1999, pp. 59-60). Gergen’s distinctions reflect the metatheories existing in the fields of
psychology and educati on. We feel, however, that G ergen’s distinctions ar e
particularly well suited for describing metatheories in IS, because information
JDOC
61,1
80
To continue reading
Request your trial