Search results

This article presents an introduction to the Delphi method and review of Delphi studies published in the literature of library and information science (LIS).

A review of Delphi studies published between the years of 1971 and 2019 is performed, using studies retrieved from the Library and Information Science Source database. A total of 122 articles were retrieved and evaluated based on the population studied, means of identifying experts, number of participants for each study round, type of Delphi, and type of findings.

General librarians (any type), academic librarians, and information science researchers are the most common populations in LIS Delphi studies. On average (middle 50 percent of studies), 14–36 experts are used in the first round of LIS Delphi studies (median n = 23). Employment in a specific role and publications in scholarly journals are the most common means of identifying experts. Variants of the e-Delphi (online survey/email) method are increasingly common, particularly in LIS Delphi studies that focus on general information science, rather than library, topics. Though LIS Delphi studies are relatively few in number, they have a consistent record of being published in some of the most prestigious LIS journals.

This paper provides an introduction to the Delphi method for LIS research and presents an overview of existing literature in LIS that utilizes the research method. No overview of this extent exists in the LIS literature, and, thus, this paper may serve as an important information source about the method for LIS researchers.

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 statistical method plays an extremely important role in quantitative research studies in library and information science (LIS). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the status of statistical methods used in the field, their application areas and the temporal change patterns during a recent 15-year period.

The research papers in six major scholarly journals from 1999 to 2013 in LIS were examined. Factors including statistical methods, application areas and time period were analyzed using quantitative research methods including content analysis and temporal analysis methods.

The research studies using statistical methods in LIS have increased steadily. Statistical methods were more frequently used to solve problems in the information retrieval area than in other areas, and inferential statistical methods were used more often than predictive statistical methods and other statistical methods. Anomaly analysis on statistical method uses was conducted and four types of anomaly were specified.

The findings of this study can help educators, graduates and researchers in the field of LIS better understand the patterns and trends of the applications of statistical methods in this field, depict an overall picture of quantitative research studies in LIS from the perspective of statistical methods and discover the change patterns of statistical method applications in LIS between 1999 and 2013.

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.

This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015.

The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology.

The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed.

Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).

This paper aims to utilize Whitley's theory of the intellectual and social organization of the sciences and build on research carried on by Aarek et al., Vakkari, Rochester and Vakkari, and Åström, to analyze both intellectual and institutional characteristics of Arabic library and information science (LIS).

Data derived from a content analysis of sampled research articles published in seven core peer‐reviewed Arabic LIS journals and from an inventory of the currently identified Arabic LIS educational institutions, professional associations, and scholarly communication channels were analyzed in terms of Whitley's theory and relevant LIS research.

The social organization of Arabic LIS has highly influenced its intellectual organization. An analysis of types and diversity of institutional affiliations, determination of terminology, resources and fund accessibility, scholarly communication of intellectual productivity, and research collaboration point to high levels of “tasks uncertainty”, low levels of “mutual dependency” and uncontrolled “reputational autonomy”.

Because Arabic LIS institutions, associations, and research channels are poorly represented on the internet or in accessible literature, it was difficult to collect data comprehensively. While the findings are suggestive and are in agreement with views from the Arabic LIS literature, the results cannot be generalized to regions beyond the Arab world. This investigation is not primarily intended as a contribution to the philosophy of LIS, but to describe the development of LIS in the Arab States within a broad social and intellectual framework.

While there is a considerable body of theoretically‐oriented interpretations for bibliometric findings, no research has been conducted to analyze the social and intellectual dimensions of LIS in the Arab world. This paper also fills a gap for this type of the research in Arabic LIS and creates awareness of Arabic LIS for English‐speaking readers.

This article is intended to stimulate theoretical reflection in international comparative studies in library and information science (comparative LIS).

The need for theory is emphasized and shortcomings in comparative LIS in respect of theory are identified. On the basis of literature from other comparative disciplines, a framework for examining issues of metatheory, methodology and methods is constructed. Against this background the role of theory and metatheory in the literature of comparative LIS is evaluated. General observations are illustrated using examples selected from comparative studies in LIS.

Much of the literature of comparative LIS is atheoretical and based on assumptions that reflect naive empiricism. Most comparativists in LIS fail to link their work to that of colleagues, so that no body of theory is built up. Insufficient use is made of theory from other social science disciplines. There is a little evidence of awareness of metatheoretical assumptions in the sociological, teleological, ontological, epistemological and ethical dimensions.

While general observations are presented about the literature of comparative LIS, this is not a bibliometric study. Issues of methodology and method are not dealt with.

Recommendations are made for improving teaching and research in comparative LIS. Concepts presented here are of value to the wider LIS community, particularly in internationally oriented research and practice.

Since the 1980s there has been very little conceptual and methodological reflection on comparative LIS. This article alerts the LIS profession to new thinking in other comparative disciplines.

This study examines research methods utilized in five practitioner-oriented research journals – College and Research Libraries, Information Technology and Libraries, Journal of the Medical Library Association, Library Resources and Technical Services and Reference and User Services Quarterly. The study fills gaps identified in existing content analyses of methods in practitioner-based LIS research publications.

Based on analysis standards and coding schemes supplied by the studies of Kalervo Jarvelin and Pertti Vakkari, as well as Heting Chu, this study identifies the primary research method utilized in 6,387 articles published in these five journals from 1980 to 2019. Trends in the frequencies with which various research methods were used are identified and presented using a series of visualizations.

Significant shifts have occurred in the research methods used by articles in these practitioner-based journals over the past four decades. Notably, the proportion of case studies has dropped substantially, particularly among College and Research Libraries and Journal of the Medical Library Association articles. Diversity of research methods utilized in articles has increased over time, with College and Research Libraries, in particular, having a significant proportion of articles in recent years that employ data analytic or qualitative approaches.

While similar approaches have been used to examine research methods among other LIS journals, this study is the first to focus primarily on practitioner-based journals and document continuous change (as opposed to sampling a few years) over an extended, 40-year period.

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.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the implementations and implications of Grounded Theory as an exploratory and inductive research method in the LIS studies. The paper seeks to illustrate the opportunities and challenges that this methodology has brought to the methodological paradigms of LIS research body. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on two blended constituents including a selective literature review and the author's personal experience in using Grounded Theory. Regarding the paper's scope it possesses a holistic approach to the issue and does not examine the results of individual reviewed studies in detail. Findings – The results suggest that up to now there have been a considerable number of studies in the LIS area that have successfully employed Grounded Theory. Nevertheless, it does not mean that this methodology is applicable in any research context. Accordingly, there is not a unanimous agreement on the usefulness of this methodology in the research community. Nevertheless, these arguments not only did not diminish the value of Grounded Theory but also helped grounded theorists to enhance this methodology's credibility and trustfulness. Research limitations/implications – Regarding the wide use of Grounded Theory it was not possible to carry out an exhaustive review of all studies that have employed Grounded Theory. However, the reviewed studies in this paper can be considered as a representative of the targeted research body. Providing the research community with an overall image of the applicability of Grounded Theory in LIS research is the main implication of the paper. Future researchers will benefit from the paper by finding out about the nature of this methodology and the aspects that they need to consider before using it. Originality/value – Although Grounded Theory is a widely used methodology, there are few publications about its applicability in LIS research. Therefore, this paper can contribute to the area through providing a holistic picture of the role of this methodology in LIS research.