Using the domain analytical approach in the study of information practices in biomedicine
| Date | 12 September 2016 |
| Pages | 961-986 |
| Published date | 12 September 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2015-0139 |
| Author | Annikki Roos,Turid Hedlund |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Using the domain analytical
approach in the study
of information practices
in biomedicine
Annikki Roos
Hanken School of Economics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, and
Turid Hedlund
Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to analyze the information practices of the researchers in
biomedicine using the domain analytical approach.
Design/methodology/approach –The domain analytical research approach used in the study of the
scientific domain of biomedicine leads to studies into the organization of sciences. By using Whitley’s
dimensions of “mutual dependence”and “task uncertainty”in scientific work as a starting point the
authors were able to reanalyze previously collected data. By opening up these concepts in the
biomedical research work context, the authors analyzed the distinguishing features of the biomedical
domain and the way these features affected researchers’information practices.
Findings –Several indicators representing “task uncertainty”and “mutual dependence”in the
scientific domain of biomedicine were identified. This study supports the view that in biomedicine the
task uncertainty is low and researchers are mutually highly dependent on each other. Hard competition
seems to be one feature, which is behind the explosion of the data and publications in this domain. This
fact, on its part is directly related to the ways information is searched, followed, used and produced.
The need for new easy to use services or tools for searching and following information in so called
“hot”topics came apparent.
Originality/value –The study highlights new information about information practices in the
biomedicaldomain. Whitley’s theory enabled a thoroughanalysis of the cultural andsocial nature of the
biomedical domain and it proved to be useful in the examination of researchers’information practices.
Keywords Information services, Information science, Research work, Information practices,
Biomedicine, Domain analytical approach
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Within the field of information science (IS) research into domains of scientific and
scholarly disciplines has a long tradition. Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995) introduced a
new terminology “domain analysis”and argue that the best way to understand
information is to study the domains where knowledge is presented and that knowledge
domains should be studied as thought and discourse communities. The domain
analytical approach, according to Hjørland and Albrechtsen (1995), suggests a social
perspective that individuals should be seen as a member of a discourse community,
a research or working group or a discipline.
Palmer and Cragin (2009) point out that in recent decades research on disciplinary
practice has been growing in the social sciences in general. In IS, the number of
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 72 No. 5, 2016
pp. 896-915
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-11-2015-0139
Received 14 November 2015
Revised 13 March 2016
Accepted 3 April 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0022-0418.htm
The authors would like to acknowledge the suggestions and comments that the authors received
from the anonymous reviewers.
896
JDOC
72,5
disciplinary-oriented studies has also increased. However, numerous existing studies
(see e.g. Nicholas et al., 2006), which aim to look at access and use of information
resources in scientific domains, consider the use of a resource as an isolated entity.
According to Talja (2005) it is well known that there are field differences in researchers’
information practices but a comprehensive understanding about factors that deter mine
the differences is missing. Domain analysis as an approach to understand scientific or
scholarly research and the information practices in a discipline or research field or even
as small a unit as a research group is not widely used in IS research. Advocates of the
domain analytical approach are Jenny Fry (2006) and Sanna Talja (2005). Both Fry and
Talja see the domain analytical approach as a mean to understand and explain the field
differences in scientific and scholarly work and the information practices and use.
According to Whitley (2000) scientificdisciplines may be understood in similar ways
as work organizations. However, compared with other work organizations, differences
exist. The outcomes of the work tasks are more uncertain because a key feature in
research work is the commitment to innovative and new knowledge. This uncertainty
leads to a particular structure fororganizing and controlling research. Mainly the novelty
of research results is rewarded. The scientific community and researchers in the same
field in co-operation control and evaluate the novelty and contribution of the research
work. Whitley (2000) explains that there exists variation between scientificfields in how
the work is controlledand organized. He presents the differences between scientific fields
by two factors: the “degree of mutual dependence”between researchers and the “degree
of task uncertainty.”These factors will beexplained in more detail in the fourth chapter.
Fry and Talja (2007) join forces in an article contributing to the theoretical
understanding of differences in scientific disciplines and how the differences affect the
shaping of for example net-based resources. The findings of their study support
Whitley’s theory. In environmental biology and high-energy physics, where the task
uncertainty is low and mutual dependence high, scientists “know where their research
is located in relation to the rest of the field and how to make a contribution to it. This
means that they have no need to use unrestricted topic-oriented lists as an aid to
scanning the field and assessing where their research fits.”(Fry and Talja, 2007, p. 123)
In the fields, where mutual dependence is lower and task uncertainty higher, like in
social/cultural geography or literature and cultural studies, researchers need to use
various informal channels, for example mailing lists, in order to be able to locate
themselves within the existing discussion in their field.
In this study, we will apply the domain analytical perspective when studying
information practices in the field of biomedicine. According to the dimensions used by
Whitley (2000) biomedicine resembles environmental biology as a field with high
mutual dependence in research communication and controlled research and publishing
methods (Hedlund and Roos, 2007).
We understand information practices as a set of socially and culturally established
activities to seek, use and share information and data available in different sources. As
noticed by Savolainen (2007, p. 110), the concept of information practices is not neutral
but is based on the presumption that information-related activities are constituted
socially and dialogically rather than based on individual motives, needs or ideas as is
the case in the cognitiv research approach in IS. We consider that among one of the
most important factors to consider in understanding information practices, is the social
dimension of scholars’domain or discipline (Palmer and Cragin, 2009). The historical,
collective and material aspects of the context of the practice, in our study, the scientific
domain, have effects and modify the information practice itself (Rivera and Cox, 2014).
897
Information
practices in
biomedicine
To continue reading
Request your trial