Library and information science

Library and information science ( LIS ) (sometimes Given the plural as library and information science ) [1] [2] or as ” library and information studies ” [3] is a merging of library science and information science . The abbreviated term “SLIS”. In the last part of the 1960s, schools of librarianship , which developed from professional training programs (not academic disciplines) to university institutions during the second half of the 20th century, began to add the term “information science” to their names. The first school to do this was at the University of Pittsburgh in 1964. [4] More schools followed during the 1970s and 1980s, and by the 1990s almost all library schools in the USA had added information science to their names. Weaver Press: Although there are exceptions, similar developments have taken place in other parts of the world. In Denmark, for example, the Royal School of Librarianship ‘ict English name changed to The Royal School of Library and Information Science in 1997. Exceptions include Tromso, Norway, Where the term documentation science is the preferred name of the field, France, Where information science and communication studies form one interdiscipline , [5] and Sweden,

In spite of several trends to merge the two fields, some consider the two original disciplines, library science and information science , to be separate. [6] [7] However, the tendency is to use the terms as synonyms or to drop the term “library” and to speak about information departments or I-schools . Citation needed ] There-have beens aussi Attempts to revive the concept of literature and to speak of Library, Information and Documentation Studies (or science). [8]

Relations between library science, information science and LIS

Tefko Saracevic (1992, p.13) [6] argued that library science and information science are separate fields:

“The common ground between library science and information science, which is a strong one, is in the sharing of their social role and in their general concern with the problems of effective utilization of graphic records. (2) theoretical questions and frameworks; (3) the nature and degree of experimentation and empirical development and the resulting practical knowledge / competencies (4) tools and approaches, and (5) the nature and strength of interdisciplinary relationships and the dependence of the progress and evolution of interdisciplinary approaches.All of these differences warrant the conclusion that librarianship and information science are two different fields in a strong interdisciplinary relation, rather than one and the same field, or one being a special case of the other. “

UMI’s Dissertations Abstracts. In Dissertations Abstracts Online on November 2011 were 4888 dissertations indexed with the descriptor LIBRARY SCIENCE and 9053 with the descriptor INFORMATION SCIENCE. For the year 2009 the numbers were 104 LIBRARY SCIENCE and 514 INFORMATION SCIENCE. 891 dissertations were indexed with both terms (36 in 2009).

It shoulds be regarded That information science Grew out of materials science and therefore: has a tradition for Considering scientific and scholarly communication, bibliographic databases , subject knowledge and terminology etc. Library Science, on the other hand, and their internal processes and best practices. It is important to note that it is important to note that this is not the case. Library and Information Science, vol. When information scientists from 1964 entered library schools, They have been able to identify and evaluate the results of the research. Subject index: Information and communication technologies.

Julian Warner (2010) [9] suggests that the information and computer science tradition in information retrieval may broadly be characterized as query transformation , with the query articulated verbally by the system in a set of records . From librarianship and indexing, on the other hand, has-been an implicit stress we select power Enabling the user to make selections within.

Difficulties defining LIS

“The question, ‘What is library and information science?’ “What is chemistry?”, ‘What is medicine?’, ‘What is medicine?’, ‘What is chemistry?’, ‘What is chemistry?’ […] Neither LIS theory nor practice is perceived to be monolithic nor unified by a common literature or set of professional skills Occasionally, LIS Scholars (many of whom do not self-identify as members of an interrelating LIS), attempt to reach core concepts in common. Every important aspect of LIS, Indeed see LIS as a sub-field of computer science! [Footnote III.1] Others claim that LIS is a social science assistant with practical skills such as ethnography and interviewing. Historically, traditions of public service, bibliography, documentalism, and information science have seen their mission, their philosophical tools, and their domain of research differently. Still others denying the existence of a greater metropolitan LIS, viewing LIS instead of a loosely organized collection of specialized interests, often unified by nothing more than their shared (and fought-over) use of the descriptor information. (Konrad, 2007, pp. 652-653). In this paper, we present the results of the study. 1] Others claim that LIS is a social science. Historically, traditions of public service, bibliography, documentalism, and information science have seen their mission, their philosophical tools, and their domain of research differently. Still others denying the existence of a greater metropolitan LIS, viewing LIS instead of a loosely organized collection of specialized interests, often unified by nothing more than their shared (and fought-over) use of the descriptor information. (Konrad, 2007, pp. 652-653). In this paper, we present the results of the study. 1] Others claim that LIS is a social science. Historically, traditions of public service, bibliography, documentalism, and information science have seen their mission, their philosophical tools, and their domain of research differently. Still others denying the existence of a greater metropolitan LIS, viewing LIS instead of a loosely organized collection of specialized interests, often unified by nothing more than their shared (and fought-over) use of the descriptor information. (Konrad, 2007, pp. 652-653). In this paper, we present the results of the study. And information science have viewed their mission, their philosophical tools, and their domain of research differently. Still others denying the existence of a greater metropolitan LIS, viewing LIS instead of a loosely organized collection of specialized interests, often unified by nothing more than their shared (and fought-over) use of the descriptor information. (Konrad, 2007, pp. 652-653). In this paper, we present the results of the study. And information science have viewed their mission, their philosophical tools, and their domain of research differently. Still others denying the existence of a greater metropolitan LIS, viewing LIS instead of a loosely organized collection of specialized interests, often unified by nothing more than their shared (and fought-over) use of the descriptor information. (Konrad, 2007, pp. 652-653). In this paper, we present the results of the study.

A multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or monodisciplinary field?

The Swedish researcher Emin Tengström (1993). [10] described cross-disciplinary research as a process, not a state or structure. He differentiates three levels of ambition regarding cross-disciplinary research:

  • The ” Pluridisciplinary ” or ” multidisciplinarity ” level
  • The genuine cross-disciplinary level: ” interdisciplinarity “
  • The discipline-forming level ” transdisciplinarity “

What is described here is a social field with dynamic and changing. Library and information science as a multidisciplinary field based on literature, psychology, sociology, management, computer science etc., which is an academic discipline in its own right. However, the LIS is actually developing in the opposite direction:

Chua & Yang (2008) [11] studied papers published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology in the period 1988-1997 and found, among other things: “Top authors have grown in diversity from those being affiliated predominantly with library Amid heterogeneous clusters of collaboration between top authors, strongly connected crossdisciplinary coauthor, the distribution of top keywords’ occurrences That heavily on the core information science has shifted towards other subdisciplines such as information technology and sociobehavioral science. ”

As a field with its own body of interrelated concepts, techniques, journals, and professional associations, LIS is clearly a discipline. LIS is just interdiscipline , drawing on many adjacent fields (see below).

A fragmented adhocracy

Richard Whitley (1984, [12] 2000) [13] classification scientific adherence as a ‘fragmented adhocracy’, a field with a low level of coordination Non-specialized terminology; But with strong connections to the business sector. Åström (2006) [14] applied this design to the description of LIS.

Scattering of the literature

Meho & Spurgin (2005) [15] found that in a list of 2,625 items published between 1982 and 2002 by 68 faculty members of 18 schools of information and science, only 10 databases provided significant coverage of the LIS literature. The results of this study are summarized in the following table. LIS literature, researchers must rely on a wide range of disciplinary and multidisciplinary databases for ranking and other research purposes. LIS was searched and combined, 27.0% (or 710 of 2,635) of the publications remain not found.

“The study confirms earlier research that LIS literature is highly scattered and is not limited to standard LIS databases. (2005), p.1329, pp. 139-187 (1974), pp. 139-159 (1974), pp. 139-153, and the results of the literature review are presented in this paper. ).

The unique concern of library and information science

“LIS from other fields.” LIS is a part of a larger enterprise. ” (Konrad, 2007: 655). [16]

“The only concern of LIS is that of the LIS:” Humans become informed (constructing meaning) via intermediation between inquirers and instrumented records “(Konrad, 2007, p. 660)

“Note que la promiscuous term information does not APPEAR in the Above statement circumscribing the field’s central Concerns: The detrimental effects of the ambiguity this term provokes are Discussed Above (Part III) Furner [Furner 2004 427] HAS shown That discourse in the. I have been working with a lot of people for a long time and I have been working with them since then. ” (Konrad, 2007: 661).

Michael Buckland wrote: “Educational programs in library, information and documentation are concerned with what people know, are not limited to technology, and require broad-ranging expertise. Business schools. ” [17]

LIS theories

Julian Warner (2010, 4-5) [9] suggests that

” Two paradigms, the cognitive and the physical , have been distinguished in information retrieval research, but they share the assumption of the value of delivering relevant records” (Ellis 1984, 19; [18] Belkin and Vickery 1985, 114 [19] ). For the purpose of discussion here, they can be considered as a single heterogeneous paradigm, linked by the common assumption. The value placed on query transformation is dissonant with common practice, Some dissenting research discussions have been more congruent with practice,Advocating explorative capability – the ability to explore and make discriminations between representations of objects.

The domain analytic approach (eg, Hjørland 2010 [20] ) suggests that the criteria for making discriminations in information retrieval are scientific and scholarly criteria. In some fields (eg, evidence-based medicine) [21] the relevant distinctions are very explicit. In other cases they are implicit or unclear. At the basic level, the relevance of bibliographical records is determined by the epistemological criteria of what constitutes knowledge.

Among other approaches, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice should also be mentioned.

Journals

(See also List of LIS Journals in India page, Category: Library science journals and Journal Citation Reports for listing according to Impact factor )

Some core journals in LIS are:

  • Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) (1966-2011)
  • El Profesional de la Información (es) (PPE) (1992-) (Formerly World Information en Español)
  • Information Processing and Management
  • Information Research: An International Electronic Journal (IR) (1995-)
  • Italian Journal of Library and Information Studies (JLIS.it)
  • Journal of Documentation (JDoc) (1945-)
  • Journal of Information Science (JIS) (1979-)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (Formerly Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology ) (JASIST) (1950-)
  • Knowledge Organization (journal)
  • The Library Quarterly (LQ) (1931-)
  • Library Trends (1952-)
  • Scientometrics (journal) (1978-)
  • Library Literature and Information Science Retrospective (1901-1983)

Important bibliographical databases in LIS are, among others, Social Sciences Citation Index and Library and Information Science Abstracts

Conferences

This is a list of some of the major conferences in the field.

  • Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
  • Concepts of Library and Information Science
  • I-Schools ‘ “iConferences
  • ISIC – the Information Behavior Conference http://informationr.net/isic/index.html
  • The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA): World Library and Information Congress, https://web.archive.org/web/20150706164140/http://conference.ifla.org/
  • The international conferences of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), http://www.isko.org/events.html

Common subfields

An advertisement for a Full Professor in Information Science at the Royal School of Library and Information Science, Spring 2011 Provides one view of qui subdisciplines are well-established: [22] “The research and teaching / supervision must be Within Some (and at Least one) of these well-established information science areas

  • at. Knowledge organization
  • b. Library studies
  • c. Information architecture
  • d. Information behavior
  • e. Interactive information retrieval
  • f. Information systems
  • g. Scholarly communication
  • h. Digital literacy (cf information literacy )
  • i. Bibliometrics or scientometrics
  • j. Interaction design and user experience “
  • k. Digital library

There are other ways to identify subfields within LIS, for example bibliometric mapping and comparative studies of curricula. Bibliometric maps of LIS have been produced by Vickery & Vickery (1987, frontispiece), [23] White & McCain (1998), [24] Åström (2002, [25] 2006) and Hassan-Montero & Herrero- Solana (2007). [26] An example of a curriculum study is Kajberg & Lørring, 2005. [27] In this publication, the curriculum of the curriculum of responding LIS schools

  • Information seeking and Information retrieval 100%
  • Library management and promotion 96%
  • Knowledge management 86%
  • Knowledge organization 82%
  • Information literacy and learning 76%
  • Library and society in a historical perspective ( Library history ) 66%
  • The Information Society : Barriers to the free access to information 64%
  • Cultural heritage and digitization of the cultural heritage ( Digital preservation ) 62%
  • The library in the multi-cultural information society: International and intercultural communication 42%
  • Mediation of culture in a special European context 26%

There is often an overlap between these subfields of LIS and other fields of study. Most information retrieval research, for example, belongs to computer science. Knowledge management is considered a subfield of management or organizational studies. [28]

See also

  • Archival Science
  • Authority control
  • Bibliography
  • Digital Asset Management (DAM)
  • Science Documentation
  • Education for librarianship
  • Glossary of library and information science
  • I-School
  • Information history
  • Information systems
  • Knowledge management
  • Library and information scientist
  • Museology
  • Museum informatics
  • Records Management

References

  1. Jump up^ Bates, MJ and Maack, MN (eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. Flight. 1-7. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. Also available as an electronic source.
  2. Jump up^ Library and Information Science is the name used in theDewey Decimal Classificationfor class 20 from the 18th edition (1971) to the 22nd edition (2003)
  3. Jump up^ “Canada Library School University Programs” . Www.canadian-universities.net . Retrieved 23 November 2014 .
  4. Jump up^ Galvin, TJ (1977). Pittsburgh. University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Library and Information Science. IN: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (Vol. Ed. By A. Kent, H. Lancour & JEDaily. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. (pp. 280-291)
  5. Jump up^ Mucchielli, A., (2000), The new communication: epistemology of the information sciencescommunication. Paris, Armand Colin, 2000. Collection U. Communication Sciences
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Saracevic, Tefko (1992). Information science: origin, evolution and relations. In: Conceptions of library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives . Edited by Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham (pp. 5-27).
  7. Jump up^ Miksa, Francis L. (1992). Library and information science: two paradigms. In:Conceptions of library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. Edited by Pertti Vakkari & Blaise Cronin. London: Taylor Graham (pp. 229-252).
  8. Jump up^ Rayward, WB (Ed.) (2004). Aware and responsible. Papers of the Nordic- International Colloquium on Social and Cultural Awareness and responsibility in Library, Information and Documentation Studies (SCARLID). Lanham, MD:
  9. ^ Jump up to:a b Warner, Julian (2010). Human information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
  10. Jump up^ Tengström, E. (1993). Biblioteks- och informationvetenskapen – ett fler- eller tvär-vetenskapligt område? Svensk Biblioteksforskning, (1), 9-20.
  11. Jump up^ Chua, A. & Yang, CC (2008). The shift towards multi-disciplinarity in information science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (13), 2156-2170.
  12. Jump up^ Whitley, R. (1984). The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences. Journal of management studies, 21 (3), 331-348.
  13. Jump up^ Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  14. Jump up^ Åström, F. (2006). The social and intellectual development of library and information science. Doctoral theses at the Department of Sociology, Umeå University. No 48 2006.http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:145144/FULLTEXT01
  15. Jump up^ Meho, Lokman I. & Spurgin, Kristina M. (2005). Ranking the Research Productivity of Library and Information Science Faculty and Schools: An Evaluation of Data Sources and Research Methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (12), 1314-1331.
  16. Jump up^ Konrad, A. (2007). On inquiry: Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved fromhttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/1s76b6hp
  17. Jump up^ Buckland, Michael K. (2004). Reflections on social and cultural awareness and responsibility in library, information and documentation – Commentary on the SCARLID colloquium. In: Rayward, WB (Ed.). Aware and responsible. Papers of the Nordic- International Colloquium on Social and Cultural Awareness and responsibility in Library, Information and Documentation Studies (SCARLID). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. (Pp. 169-175).
  18. Jump up^ Ellis, David (1984). Theory and explanation in information retrieval research. Journal of Information Science, 8, 25-38
  19. Jump up^ Belkin, NJ & Vickery, A. (1985) –Interaction in information systems: A review of research from retrieval to knowledge-based systems. London: British Library (Library and Information Research Report 35).
  20. Jump up^ Hjørland, Birger (2010). The foundation of the concept of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61 (2), 217-237.
  21. Jump up^ Hjørland, Birger (2011). Evidence based practice: An analysis based on the philosophy of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (7), 1301-1310.
  22. Jump up^ Advertisement for a full Professor of Information Science at the Royal School of Library and Information Science, spring 2011: “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25 . Retrieved 2011-11-02 .
  23. Jump up^ Vickery, Brian & Vickery, Alina (1987). Information science in theory and practice. London: Bowker-Saur.
  24. Jump up^ White, HD, & McCain, KW (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author’s co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (4), 327-355.
  25. Jump up^ Åström, Fredrik (2002) Visualizing Library and Information Science concept spaces through keyword and citation based maps and clusters. In: Bruce, Fidel, Ingwersen & Vakkari (Eds.). Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), pp 185-197. Greenwood Village: Libraries unlimited.
  26. Jump up^ Hassan-Montero, Y., Herrero-Soalana, V. (2007). Visualizing Library and Information Science from the practitioner’s perspective. 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics June 25-27, 2007, Madrid (Spain). http://yusef.es/Visualizing_LIS.pdf
  27. Jump up^ Kajberg, Leif & Lørring, Leif (eds.). (2005). European Curriculum Reflections on Library and Information Science Education. Copenhagen: The Royal School of Library and Information Science. http://library.upt.ro/LIS_Bologna.pdf
  28. Jump up^ Clegg, Stewart; Bailey, James R., eds. (2008). International Encyclopedia of Organizational Studies . Los Angeles, Calif .: Sage Publications Inc. pp. 758-762. ISBN  978-1-4129-5390-0 .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *