Search results

The narrow purpose of this article is to review de Fremery’s (2024) book about the bibliographic foundations of information science. The broader purpose is to consider the actual as well as the potential relevance of the field(s) of bibliography for information science besides the book under review.

This review essay examines the arguments put forward by de Fremery (2024), introduces concepts and traditional lore from the study of bibliography and presents internal conflicts or paradigms in the field of bibliography. It relates this information to foundational issues in information science.

De Fremery’s basic ambition of basing information science in the field of bibliography is important, and so is the attempt to consider bibliography in relation to contemporary information technologies such as machine learning and data science. The book under review fails, however, to describe the relations between different positions in bibliography, such as enumerative, analytical, descriptive, critical and historical bibliography in relation to information science. It rather tends to make problematic claims, for example, that scientific experiments are based on bibliographical methods, and to describe the relation of bibliography to information science on the basis of such interpretations. Nonetheless, the book is a serious attempt to consider the field of bibliography and thereby support the focus on documents in information science.

Information science often suffers because of ambiguities in the concept of information. When information science is understood as the study of literature-based answering, much else falls into place. The field of bibliography is a core concept for this understanding and re-orientation of information science, for example, by establishing the core relation between bibliography, information searching and knowledge organization.

The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS).

The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward.

It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the “sociological view” are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality.

The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: “empiricism”, “rationalism” and “positivism” in library and information science (LIS).

First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined.

The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation.

The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field.

The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science.

The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed.

It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS‐literature itself and that the answers to such questions as “What is positivism?” are not trivial ones.

The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.

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.

Examines articles in this issue.

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.

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.

This article examines the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), which is the most used subject heading system in the world and an instance of a controlled vocabulary (CV).

The method used to examine the system is based on both authors’ subject knowledge in the field of information science (IS) and the subfield of knowledge organization (KO). Core concepts in this domain were examined (1) by checking if they are present or not in the system; (2) if not, by determining whether LCSH contains alternative terms useful for searching documents about the missing concept, by examining books indexed by the Library of Congress; (3) by identifying the semantic relations between subject headings.

The results demonstrate fundamental problems in the logical consistency of the representation of IS and KO in LCSH.

The implications for CVs in general are discussed.

No previous study has used our method to examine LCSH’s coverage of IS.

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of ‘subject’ or ‘subject matter’ in library and information science. Most conceptions of ‘subject’ in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theories of ‘subject matter’ explicit as the first step. A very close connection exists between what subjects are, and how we are to know them. Those researchers who place the subjects in the minds of the users have a conception of ‘subject’ different to that possessed by those who regard the subject as a fixed property of the documents. The key to the definition of the concept of ‘subject’ lies in the epistemological investigation of how we are going to know what we need to know about documents in order to describe them in a way which facilitates information retrieval. The second step therefore is an analysis of the implicit epistemological conceptions in the major existing conceptions of ‘subject’. The different conceptions of ‘subject’ can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. ‘subjective idealism’ (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), ‘objective idealism’ (the rationalistic viewpoint), ‘pragmatism’ and ‘materialism/ realism’. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the information phenomenon through the means of informational practice – the way of acting that gives identity to a group – in a social field and knowledge domain.

By relating Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture to the domain analysis approach of Birger Hjørland, the intention was to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of the structure which generates the discourse communities and, also, of the social structure from which they are derived. All of these form the conditions for understanding the efforts, objectives and interests of the actors in the social field that causes them to develop determined informational practices. The field of architecture was elected for analysis.

The conclusions show that both the products and subjects of a domain of knowledge, inserted in social fields, are expressions of their informational practice.

The authors believe the theoretical model based on Bourdieu and Hjørland's concepts, here built to analyze the architecture domain, may be used to analyze other domains.

Domain analysis is employed as an approach to the study of the information aspects but here supported by the sociological concepts of Bourdieu. Thus, it is possible to understand what, how and why the informational practices are constituted inside a domain of knowledge, and, fundamentally, interpret the historical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence the construction of information.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the functionality of the particular epistemological schools with regard to the issues of users with visual impairment, to offer a theoretical answer to the question why these issues are not in the center of the interest of information science, and to try to find an epistemological approach that has ambitions to create the theoretical basis for the analysis of the relationship between information and visually impaired users.

The methodological basis of the paper is determined by the selection of the epistemological approach. In order to think about the concept of information and to put it in relation to issues associated with users with visual impairment, a conceptual analysis is applied.

Most of information science theories are based on empiricism and rationalism; this is the reason for their low interest in the questions of visually impaired users. Users with visual disabilities are out of the interest of rationalistic epistemology because it underestimates sensory perception; empiricism is not interested in them paradoxically because it overestimates sensory perception. Realism which fairly reflects such issues is an approach which allows the providing of information to persons with visual disabilities to be dealt with properly.

The paper has a speculative character. Its findings should be supported by empirical research in the future.

Theoretical questions solved in the paper come from the practice of providing information to visually impaired users. Because practice has an influence on theory and vice versa, the author hopes that the findings included in the paper can serve to improve practice in the field.

The paper provides theoretical anchoring of the issues which are related to the inclusion of people with disabilities into society and its findings have a potential to support such efforts.

This is first study linking questions of users with visual disabilities to highly abstract issues connected to the concept of information.

The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context.

The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman.

There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works.

This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.