Search results

The purpose of this paper is to characterize library and information science (LIS) as fragmenting discipline both historically and by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory about the organization of sciences and Fuchs’ (1993) theory about scientific change.

The study combines historical source analysis with conceptual and theoretical analysis for characterizing LIS. An attempt is made to empirically validate the distinction between LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The origin of fragmentation in LIS due the contributions of other disciplines can be traced in the 1960s and 1970s for solving the problems produced by the growth of scientific literature. Computer science and business established academic programs and started research relevant to LIS community focusing on information retrieval and bibliometrics. This has led to differing research interests between LIS and other disciplines concerning research topics and methods. LIS has been characterized as fragmented adhocracy as a whole, but we make a distinction between research topics LIS context, L&I services and information seeking as fragmented adhocracies and information retrieval and scientific communication (scientometrics) as technologically integrated bureaucracies.

The paper provides an elaborated historical perspective on the fragmentation of LIS in the pressure of other disciplines. It also characterizes LIS as discipline in a fresh way by applying Whitley’s (1984) theory.

The subject of this paper is the idea of Brain–Computer Interface (BCI). The main goal is to assess the potential impact of BCI on the design, use and evaluation of information retrieval systems operating in libraries.

The method of literature review was used to establish the state of research. The search according to accepted queries was carried out in the Scopus database and complementary in Google Scholar. To determine the state of research on BCI on the basis of library and information science, a specialist LISTA abstract database was also searched. The most current papers published in the years 2015–2019 in the English language or having at least an abstract in this language were taken into account.

The analysis showed that BCI issues are extremely popular in subject literature from various fields, mainly computer science, but practically does not occur in the context of using this technology in information retrieval systems.

Due to the fact that BCI solutions are not yet implemented in libraries and are rarely the subject of scientific considerations in the field of library and information science, this article is mainly based on literature from other disciplines. The goal was to consider how much BCI solutions can affect library information retrieval systems. The considerations presented in this article are theoretical in nature due to the lack of empirical materials on which to base. The author's assumption was to initiate a discussion about BCI on the basis of library and information science, not to propose final solutions.

The results can be widely used in practice as a framework for the implementation of BCI in libraries.

The article can help to facilitate the debate on the role of implementing new technologies in libraries.

The problem of BCI is very rarely addressed in the subject literature in the field of library and information science.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the conceptual issues of information behaviour research by reviewing the approaches to information interaction in the context of information seeking and retrieval (IS&R).

The study uses the conceptual analysis focussing on four pioneering models for interactive IS&R proposed by Belkin, Ingwersen and Ingwersen and Järvelin.

A main characteristic of models for information interaction is the tripartite setting identifying information resources accessible through information systems, intermediary/interface and user. Dialogue is a fundamental constituent of information interaction. Early models proposed by Belkin and Ingwersen focussed on the dialogue occurring in user-intermediary interaction, while more recent frameworks developed by Ingwersen and Järvelin devote more attention to dialogue constitutive of user-information system interaction.

As the study focusses on four models developed within the period of 1984-2005, the findings cannot be generalised to depict the phenomena of information interaction as a whole. Further research is needed to model the specific features of information interaction occurring in the networked information environments in particular.

The study pioneers by providing an in-depth analysis of the ways in which pioneering researchers have conceptualised the phenomena of interaction in the context of IS&R. The findings contribute to the elaboration of the conceptual space of information behaviour research.

The purpose of this paper is to find out which research topics and methods in information science (IS) articles are used in other disciplines as indicated by citations.

The study analyzes citations to articles in IS published in 31 scholarly IS journals in 2015. The study employs content analysis of articles published in 2015 receiving citations from publication venues representing IS and other disciplines in the citation window 2015–2021. The unit of analysis is the article-citing discipline pair. The data set consists of 1178 IS articles cited altogether 25 K times through 5 K publication venues. Each citation is seen as a contribution to the citing document’s discipline by the cited article, which represents some IS subareas and methodologies, and the author team's disciplinary composition, which is inferred from the authors’ affiliations.

The results show that the citation profiles of disciplines vary depending on research topics, methods and author disciplines. Disciplines external to IS are typically cited in IS articles authored by scholars with the same background. Thus, the export of ideas from IS to other disciplines is evidently smaller than the earlier findings claim. IS should not be credited for contributions by other disciplines published in IS literature.

This study is the first to analyze which research topics and methods in the articles of IS are of use in other disciplines as indicated by citations.