Turning weakness into strength: strategies for future LIS
| Date | 19 January 2010 |
| Pages | 7-27 |
| Published date | 19 January 2010 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011016344 |
| Author | Jan Nolin,Fredrik Åström |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
Turning weakness into strength:
strategies for future LIS
Jan Nolin
Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Bora
˚s,
Bora
˚s, Sweden, and
Fredrik A
˚stro
¨m
Lund University Libraries, Lund, Sweden and University of Technology Sydney,
Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – LIS has been described as a fragmented field in crisis, with an increased competition from
other fields; and lacking in development of theories. The purpose of this paper is to articulate a
strategy in which the perceived weakness can be seen as a source of strength.
Design/methodology/approach – The text builds mostly on reflections on meta-theoretical and
science-organisation literature. Ten distinct problems for the research field are identified and
discussed in order to provide a viable strategy for the future.
Findings – While it is common to suggest a convergent movement toward the idealised
characteristics of the strong research discipline as a recipe against fragmentation, a strong
convergent movement is suggested that feeds off the fragmented character of the field. What is
commonly perceived as a weakness, the multidimensional character of the field, can be translated into
a strategic resource.
Originality/value – The paper provides a fresh perspective on the strategic situation of LIS.
Keywords Research work, Information science, Uncertaintymanagement
Paper type Viewpoint
Introduction
Warner (2001) posed the question:“W(h)ither information science?/!”, discussingsigns of
a field in crisis. Library and information science (LIS), with its numerous research
orientations and differences in levels of coordination and standardization, it could, in
Whitley’s (2000) terms, be characterized as a fragmented adhocracy, a type of research
field likely to develop intofurther fragmentation according to Fuchs(1993). In analysing
this perceived crisis, it is easy to connect fragmentation and crisis to problems related to
the intellectual development of LIS identified some 35 years ago (Brookes, 1974),as well
as issues in terms of the social organization observed in the late 1980s (Vakkari, 1996)
and still remaining in the twenty-first century (Pettigrew and McKechnie, 2001).
The fragmented nature of LIS can be further exemplified by a variety of views on
procedures, approaches and even the raison d’e
ˆtre of LIS. A widely accepted motivation
for doing LIS research is that it supportsthe dissemination of relevant information, i.e. a
reason for doing research strongly identifying with a particular practice and a
professional field. The practice related identity is also strongly related to an identity
including a focus on applications oriented research, both in terms of how the field is
perceivedin academia in general and how research is actuallyassessed in relation to how
it benefits the professional practices. This is by no meansunique to LIS, but can also be
seen in, e.g. the nursing sciences (Sundin and Hedman, 2005) and social work research
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
Turning
weakness into
strength
7
Received 20 February 2009
Revised 9 June 2009
Accepted 29 June 2009
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 66 No. 1, 2010
pp. 7-27
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/00220411011016344
(Evertsson, 2002). An alternative viewpoint, though, is to gain understanding on
information-related phenomena with only slight reference to applicability (i.e. doing
basic research). There are also varying opinions on how LIS research should be
performed, making the development of new viewpoints a major theme in the
meta-analytical literature, sug gesting different epistemological, the oretical and
methodological perspectives (e.g. Brookes, 1974; Harris, 1986; Hjørland and
Albrechtsen, 1995; Hjørland, 2002a; Wilson, 2003; Ingwersen and Ja
¨rvelin, 2005).
In this article, we intend to supply a new perspective on the fragmented nature of
LIS research. We will argue that LIS, backed by a sound strategic plan, could use a
fragmentation as a valuable resource.
The conventional strategy for countering fragmentation is integration or
concentration of ideas toward a more paradigm-like research field. The intention is
to stimulate a transformation into what Becher and Trowler (2001) call a convergent
research field, with strong boundaries easy to defend. The opposite, the fragmented
adhocracy, is with this vocabulary called a divergent research field, characterised by
weak or vague boundaries that are frequently crossed from both sides. Over the years,
several attempts have been made at supplying more convergence, something discussed
by A
˚sstro
¨m (2007) and Nolin (2007) and most clearly promoted in recent years in
Ingwersen and Ja
¨rvelin (2005).
We argue that the extent of the fragmentation is too severe for the conventional
strategy. We also maintain that there is something valuable to be found in keeping LIS
research together. Furthermore, the field desperately needs some kind of strategy for
dealing with the problem of fragmentation. If LIS were more of a homogeneous
research field, fragmentation would not be that troubling. However, the more
diversified research field is, the easier it might lose any form of coherence due t o
extensive and continued fragmentation. Increasingly, we will find it difficult to
rationalise information studies as something that should be kept together. LIS is the
veteran when it comes to information studies, but we find a growing competition from
research fields with a more solid economic and academic base.
Analysing LIS in these terms is a fascinating challenge which brings us beyond the
established studies of how research fields develop. We propose that the hete rogeneous
nature of LIS does not necessarily mean a fragmented or withering LIS field. Whereas
Whitley’s (2000) theories are related to disciplinary based fields, Gibbons et al. (1994)
suggest an organization of the post-1945 sciences based on interdisciplinarity and
applications-oriented research, so-called “Mode 2”.
We suggest that these tendencies cannot only be monitored, but also influenced by
self-reflection and strategic work. This article will roughly outline such a strategy,
building on both a divergent and a convergent movement. In order to put this together,
we will assemble different pieces in a kind of jigsaw puzzle. We promote the idea that a
research discipline that manages to draw power and resources from its perceived
weaknesses is ideal in today’s complicated research landscape. We will argue, to put it
in detective jargon, that LIS has the motive, the means and the opportunity to make
this transformation.
Meta-reflexive studies as a strategic resource
This article can be characterised as meta-reflexive. It is a contribution to a specific
genre of the field that can serve as a resource for a strategic work concerning the future
JDOC
66,1
8
To continue reading
Request your trial