The association of disciplinary background with the evolution of topics and methods in Library and Information Science research 1995–2015

Abstract

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production.

What characterizes LIS as a fragmenting discipline?

“…Research problems relevant to LIS were conceptualized, formulated, tackled, and solved according to cognitive ideals of respective disciplines. Although there is not empirical evidence in the disciplinary differences of research topics and methods in LIS research before 1995 (Vakkari et al ., 2023), it is plausible that such differences existed already before that. At least from 1995 onwards disciplinary differentiation in the selection of research topics and methods has increased indicating fragmentation of LIS within and between its subfields (Vakkari et al ., 2023).…”

“…Although there is not empirical evidence in the disciplinary differences of research topics and methods in LIS research before 1995 (Vakkari et al ., 2023), it is plausible that such differences existed already before that. At least from 1995 onwards disciplinary differentiation in the selection of research topics and methods has increased indicating fragmentation of LIS within and between its subfields (Vakkari et al ., 2023). The contributions to LIS by external disciplines have strengthened the inherent fragmentation of LIS by reproducing the differences within and between the subfields.…”

“…This social institutionalization in the academic structure reflects the cognitive ideals of parent discipline (Tenopir, 1985). This development drives information retrieval and scientometrics apart from LIS as Vakkari and colleagues (2022a, b, 2023) have argued.…”

“…Similarly, Vakkari (Vakkari et al, 2022b) found that in 2015 of research articles published in 31 LIS journals 57% was authored by non-LIS scholars. Vakkari et al (2023) later showed that the proportion of articles by scholars representing LIS has decreased significantly between 1995 and 2015, especially in information retrieval and scientific communication. The share of articles produced by scholars in computer science and business has increased respectively in these two sub-fields.…”

Who cites the contributions by information science?

“…It has been influenced by other disciplines at least since 1950s, when scientists like Bradford from mathematics, Farradane from chemistry or Mooers from physics began to work with research problems in IS. Studies indicate that the number of contributions by scholars external to IS have increased significantly in IS publication venues, exceeding in number the contributions by scholars with background in IS (Chang, 2018, Urbano and Ardanuy, 2020; Vakkari et al ., 2022a, b, 2023). Studies also show that IS has increasingly spread its influence on other disciplines as indicated by citations to IS research (Odell and Gabbard, 2008; Cronin and Meho, 2008; Lariviere et al.…”