Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the current situation of academic LIS research, specifically in the UK and to provide some thoughts considering the future of the discipline. According to the opinion of the authors, this situation is characterised by a lack of cohesion, the need for justification of academic research in terms of its immediate applicability to the professional education of practitioners, and a disjuncture between the information profession and information research. The paper attempts to offer introductory thoughts regarding these circumstances.

The current situation is briefly reviewed and commented on from the authors’ viewpoint. Aspects of Pierre Bourdieu's study of the university as a hierarchically structured field of forces are considered. Some reference is made to previous literature.

The paper advances the view that the role of academic LIS research, debate and theory formation needs to be strengthened and that this needs to be reflected in the curriculum more strongly.

The paper attempts to highlight consistently overlooked contributing factors, and thus aims to shift the perspective towards role and position of LIS research within academia, rather than vis‐à‐vis the professional education it is connected to. It aims to stimulate discussion of the current situation, of how it can be perceived, and of ways to address it.

This paper aims to explore research methods used in Library and Information Science (LIS) during the past four decades. The goal is to compile a annotated bibliography of seminal works of the discipline used in different countries and social contexts.

When comparing areas and types of research, different publication patterns are taken into account. As we can see, data indicators and types of studies carried out on scientific activity contribute very little when evaluating the real response potential to identified problems. Therefore, among other things, LIS needs new methodological developments, which should combine qualitative and quantitative approaches and allow a better understanding of the nature and characteristics of science in different countries.

The conclusion is that LIS emerges strictly linked to descriptive methodologies, channeled to meet the challenges of professional practice through empirical strategies of a professional nature, which manifests itself the preponderance of a professional paradigm that turns out to be an indicator of poor scientific discipline development.

This, undoubtedly, reflects the reality of Anglo-Saxon countries, reproduced in most of the recognized journals of the field; this issue plus the chosen instruments for data collection certainly slant the results.

The development of taxonomies in the discipline cannot be left aside from the accepted by the rest of the scientific community, at least if LIS desires to be integrated and recognized as a scientific discipline.

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 article analyzes the development of the Finnish research in library and information science into its present position of high qualitative and quantitative level (in relation to the size of the research community). A number of aspects that may explain the success of the Finnish research are presented: 1) the early academic context, i.e., the establishment of the chair in LIS at the University of Tampere in 1971, 2) the new conception of LIS that emerged in Finland in the early 1980s shifting the attention from institutions into users and actions, 3) internationalization of research including publishing in peer reviewed journals, participating in international conferences, inviting foreign top-researchers into Finland, and organizing international conferences that have become institutionalized (CoLIS and ISIC), and 4) the selection of priority areas for the research effort combined with the concentration of research and doctoral education in research groups.

The US Federal government is a potential source of support for advancing Library and Information Science (LIS) through funding experimentation, innovation, and demonstration. Most agencies are not as much interested in advancing the research front in LIS as they are in LIS contributions that advance other fields. The full potential of federal funding to impact LIS is far from realized. LIS researchers should be aware of each agency's mission as well as the types of research that each one supports. Many people contribute to research agendas but the most influential are researchers themselves. Becoming more successful in winning grants will require researchers to become better grant writers and to collaborate with people outside LIS.

This chapter reports results from a study into the current state of library and information science (LIS) research in Indonesia and the major actors in the Indonesian LIS research environment. The study used a qualitative case study method. The findings show (1) a low level of LIS research activities by Indonesian academicians, library practitioners and students and (2) an emphasis on applied research into collection processes and developments, user perception and satisfaction with library services, effectiveness of libraries and information centre management and information technology. Further problems for Indonesian LIS research include the poor understanding of the relevance of LIS research, the role of LIS researchers and the conflict of values and beliefs among the actors in the Indonesian LIS environment. However, the prospects for Indonesian LIS research are improving with a growing awareness of the importance of LIS research for Indonesia. LIS research quality in Indonesia is being enhanced through formal education, research competition and journal research reports since the 2000s. Indonesian LIS actors need to learn research methodologies and cooperate with each other more intensively to improve their research skills. Recommendations for improving Indonesian LIS research include, changing the mindset of researchers to create a research climate, building research networks, improving knowledge access, changing regulations (job description, performance evaluation of system, credit points), providing more funding for LIS research and improving LIS curriculums. All Indonesian LIS actors need to communicate with each other to create acceptable values, norms and beliefs to improve Indonesian LIS research.

The necessity for continuous advancement in library education and practice requires research collaboration among library professionals. This study aims to investigate research collaboration among lecturers in the department of library and information science (LIS) and librarians in university libraries in Nigeria.

A descriptive survey research design was used for the study. The quantitative study employed a close-ended questionnaire for data collection. The study covered all the librarians in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS (LIS professionals) in public universities in Ekiti, Ondo and Osun States, Nigeria. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. The criterion mean of 2.50–2.99 was used for the research questions.

It was found that librarians in academic libraries and lecturers in Nigeria rarely engage in research collaboration. The reasons for the research collaboration are to increase the quality of research in the library profession, make research in the library profession more in-depth and cross-fertilize ideas for generating novel insights.

It is the engagement of librarians in academic libraries and the lecturers in the LIS department in the exchange of knowledge at national and international levels through research collaboration that can enhance the quality of research that emanates from the library profession.

Promotion of the library profession requires the integrated effort of library professionals in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS through research collaboration.

Promotion of the library profession requires the integrated effort of library professionals in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS through research collaboration.

The purpose of this study is to explore to which extent data mining research would be associated with the library and information science (LIS) discipline. This study aims to identify data mining related subject terms and topics in representative LIS scholarly publications.

A large set of bibliographic records over 38,000 was collected from a scholarly database representing the fields of LIS and the data mining, respectively. A multitude of text mining techniques were applied to investigate prevailing subject terms and research topics, such as influential term analysis and Dirichlet multinomial regression topic modeling.

The findings of this study revealed the relationship between the LIS and data mining research domains. Various data mining method terms were observed in recent LIS publications, such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and neural networks. The topic modeling result identified prevailing data mining related research topics in LIS, such as machine learning, deep learning, big data and among others. In addition, this study investigated the trends of popular topics in LIS over time in the recent decade.

This investigation is one of a few studies that empirically investigated the relationships between the LIS and data mining research domains. Multiple text mining techniques were employed to delineate to which extent the two research domains would be associated with each other based on both at the term-level and topic-level analysis. Methodologically, the study identified influential terms in each domain using multiple feature selection indices. In addition, Dirichlet multinomial regression was applied to explore LIS topics in relation to data mining.

The purpose of the empirical study was to examine whether strategies shown to work well in one model of network development for library and information science (LIS) practitioners and researchers could be applied successfully in the development of a new network and contribute to the narrowing of the research–practice gap in LIS.

Overall, 32 members of a new professional network were surveyed by a questionnaire following the completion of a programme of four network events held between 2019 and 2021.

The analysis demonstrates the transferability of the existing model of network development to a new network and that it can be successfully adapted for online delivery of network events and activities.

The criteria deployed for the evaluation of the new network could be used in other similar settings. Funding bodies can also use these findings as demonstration of the value of their investment in network grants.

This contribution on means of growing collaborative networks to narrow the LIS research–practice gap stands out in contrast with prior research that tends to focus the support of research productivity of academic librarians in North American universities for the purposes of career development. Here wider aspects of research engagement are considered of value for LIS practitioners from a range of sectors and institutions, beyond North America, for purposes that are broader than personal advancement.