Framing a discussion on paradigm shift(s) in the field of information

Abstract

In this opinion paper, we frame a discussion on paradigm shift(s) in the field of information. We believe that in this astonishing historical moment of new directions and new opportunities both the existing paradigms and conceptual models in the field of information can benefit from re-examination to stay current with the times. We propose a framework articulating key narratives associated with the why, what, how, and who dimensions to discuss paradigm shift(s). The purpose of this opinion paper is to initiate dialogues on groundbreaking ideas and innovative solutions as well as support research that addresses contemporary challenges in the field of information.

The Scholarly Knowledge Ecosystem: Challenges and Opportunities for the Field of Information

“…These changes present challenges and opportunities for the field of information. While the field's traditional scope of study has broadened from a focus on individual people, specific technologies, and interactions with specific information objects (Marchionini, 2008) to a focus on more general information curation and interaction lifecycles, theories and methods for evaluating and designing information ecologies remain rare (Tang et al, 2021). Further, information research has yet to broadly incorporate approaches from other disciplines to conduct large-scale ecological evaluations or systematically engage with stakeholders in other sectors of society to design and implement broadly-used information platforms.…”

The Scholarly Knowledge Ecosystem: Challenges and Opportunities for the Field of Information

“…This presents a challenge for the field of information. While the field's traditional scope of study has broadened from a focus on individual people, specific technologies, and interactions with specific information objects (Marchionini, 2008) to a focus on more general information curation and interaction lifecycles --theories and methods for evaluating and designing information ecologies remain rare (Tang et al, 2021) . Further, information research has yet to broadly incorporate approaches from other disciplines for the conduct of large-scale ecological evaluations; nor to systematically engage with stakeholders in other sectors of society in the design and implementation of major information platforms.…”

Methods for a feminist technoscience of information practice: Design justice and speculative futurities

“…The principles of neoliberalism borne out in theories and models of information behavior and practice, including their emphasis on extractive logic, monological individualism, binary definitions, and techno-solutionism (Costello & Floegel, 2021). Several endemic trends in the discipline can also be traced back to neoliberal ideologies, including the prevalence of deficit models in our research (Tang et al, 2021), particularly when discussing marginalized populations (Cooke & Kitzie, 2021); assertions of colorblindness and neutrality in both research and practice (Gibson et al, 2017;Leung, 2020); a reliance on the insider doctrine in our methods, which in our field privileges white, Western perspectives (Mehra & Gray, 2020); the prevalence of episteimicide within our discipline (Patin et al, 2020) and the chronic dismissal of marginalized and underrepresented scholars, or outsiders-within-LIS, and their work in the field (Cooke & Kitzie, 2021).…”

“…There are increasing calls for information science to make disciplinary changes that address the field's chronic limitations (Tang et al, 2021). Some of these perennial limitations include models and theories of information behavior and practice that foreground extractive logics, monological individualism, techno-solutionism, and perpetuate binary distinctions between people and technologies (Costello & Floegel, 2021).…”