Search results

No scholar or researcher is able to provide robust evidence that counters the scant reflection on metatheory – mostly ontology and epistemology – underlying management studies in general, and industrial marketing and purchasing research in particular. This paper is a contribution to the indispensable discussion of metatheoretical alternatives in research, and most importantly, the strengths and shortcomings thereof, and respective implications on research questions, objectives, and findings.

Describes the basic premises of three metatheories that represent important or emerging perspectives on information seeking, retrieval and knowledge formation in information science: constructivism, collectivism, and constructionism.

Presents a literature‐based conceptual analysis. Pinpoints the differences between the positions in their conceptions of language and the nature and origin of knowledge.

Each of the three metatheories addresses and solves specific types of research questions and design problems. The metatheories thus complement one another. Each of the three metatheories encourages and constitutes a distinctive type of research and learning.

Outlines each metatheory's specific fields of application.

Metatheory is described as the analysis of the presuppositions of a field of knowledge or practice. The presuppositions at the basis of the practice of information science are discussed, in particular relation to such concepts as information, knowledge (personal and public), message, message designation, information want and need, query, relevance and information search. The nature of these presuppositions is considered, and the conditions under which they may be replaced by others.

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.

A number of theoretical paradigms provide a networking space for the trio and complementary fields of comparative, international, and development educational (CIDE) research. Critics periodically attribute the field's lack of a sound theoretical base or commitment to one area of scientific research or another as a primary weakness in the field.¹ Espoused theoretical paradigms often provide the knowledge debate arena in which academic fields interact and build together. In an alternative perspective from this criticism, we argue that the strength of the CIDE field resides in its ability to combine multiple theoretical perspectives that offer researchers a variety of potentially fruitful metatheoretical analyses. Thus, we do not view this lack of theoretical specification as a weakness; it is the very fabric that enables CIDE educationists to study and represent increasingly complex global and local education systems.

Briefly maps the intellectual terrain of a generic system of enquiry — the metatheory of case study research. Draws a distinction between a generic research design and a methodology: the former is an overarching research plan, the latter refers to data‐generating processes and cognitive procedures for discerning datal patterns. Methodology is an integral part of every generic research design. General systems theory informs the metatheory on the case under study. Describes the armamentarium of case study research: topical loci in case study research; researcher's a priori notions and values; ideology/epistemology interrelations; data‐generating instruments and procedures; cognitive datalpattern processes and characteristics of case study discourse. Delineates the influences of the pragmatic unity of fact and value, the reciprocal relations between knowledge and practice, and the constraints of the researcher's intellectual vision and values. Presents the character and significance of the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle for the epistemology of the social/behavioural sciences.

Mixed methods research can provide a fruitful line of inquiry for educational leadership, program evaluation, and policy analysis; however, mixed methods research requires a metatheory that allows for mixing what have traditionally been considered incompatible qualitative and quantitative inquiry. The purpose of this paper is to apply Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action as that metatheoretical justification.

After reviewing the traditional quantitative/qualitative divide based on incompatible ontologies, the author argues for a pragmatist stance toward educational leadership inquiry. Such a stance allows for mixing methods because it privileges methodology and epistemology in social inquiry, rather than ontological theories of reality. Using Habermas’s metatheory, the author shows how truth claims are linguistically mediated; how they make reference to objective, subjective, and normative formal worlds; and how they are always fallible and revisable.

The author argues that Habermas’s metatheory allows (and requires) integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to fully understand social phenomena. Such integration is possible if researchers attempt to make methodological decisions explicit by linking methodology (and thus methodical decisions) to all three formal worlds, and articulating the rationale for doing so. The author also argues that making the entire corpus of claims bound within a line of social inquiry subject to critical examination promotes the validity of inquiry.

This paper contributes to the discussion on mixed methods research by applying a particular strand of pragmatism. This is an advance in the extant literature, which argues for a pragmatist stance on mixed methods research, but has not yet conceptualized a metatheoretical position supporting this stance.

Theories of organizational learning and sustainability must be able to respond to contemporary social issues and accommodate, in some way, the multiplicity of perspectives that are present in society on these topics. One way of developing multi‐perspectival capacities in the scientific understandings is through the building of metatheory. Nowhere is this task more urgently needed than in the study of organisational sustainability. To be sustainable, organisations must not only meet economic, environmental, social and governance requirements but also learn to embody them in their practices and values even during times of turbulence and extraordinary upheaval. The purpose of this paper is to propose a metatheoretical approach to organizational sustainability that can accommodate this plurality.

Three important metatheoretical lenses – the developmental, internal‐external and learning lenses – are presented which have particular relevance to turbulent organizational environments and the transformational imperatives that arise from them. These lenses are then used individually and in combination to discuss several paradoxes related to learning and sustainability issues.

The growth, learning and sustainability paradoxes present a number of challenges to organisational learning capacities that can be usefully discussed within a metatheoretical context. The set of metatheoretical lenses identified here provide some new avenues for achieving authentic sustainability.

There are two important implications of metatheoretical discussion. The first is the opening up of new directions for middle‐range theory. The second is the capacity of metatheory to critically examine extant theories and research paradigms. Several issues are raised in this paper concerning the evaluation of current theories of organisational learning and sustainability.

The metatheoretical approach to learning and sustainability proposed here resolves some fundamental paradoxes facing organisations and it opens up new ways of conceptualising the radical transformations required to meet the sustainability challenges that are being faced in the twenty‐first century.

This paper analyses the theoretical and the epistemological assumptions of information science (IS). Different views of knowledge underlie all major issues in IS. Epistemological theories have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They have also fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of “information”, on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. IS must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. The paper shows limitations in the dominant approaches to IS and proposes alternative viewpoints.

The conditions that domain analysis becomes an academic school of information science (IS) are mature. Domain analysis is one of the most important foundations of IS. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss metatheoretical and theoretical issues in the domain analytic paradigm in IS.

This paper conducts a systematic review of representative publications of domain analysis. The analysis considered degree theses, journal articles, book chapters, conference papers and other materials.

Domain analysis maintains that community is the new focus of IS research. Although domain analysis centers on the domain and community, theoretical concerns on the social and individual dimensions of IS are inherent in it by its using sociology as its important approach and socio-cognitive viewpoint. For these reasons domain analysis can integrate social–community–individual levels of IS discipline as a whole. The role of subject knowledge in IS is discussed from the perspective of domain analysis. Realistic pragmatism that forms the philosophical foundation of domain analysis is argued and the implications of these theories to IS are presented.

The intellectual evolving landscape of domain analysis during a quarter century is comprehensively reviewed. Over the past twenty-five years, domain analysis has established its academic status in the international IS circle. Being an important metatheory, paradigm and methodology, domain analysis becomes the theoretical foundation of IS research. This paper assesses the current state of domain analysis and shows the contributions of domain analysis to IS. It also aims to inspire further exploration.