Standpoint Epistemology as an Alternative Methodology for Library and Information Science

Abstract

Research traditions in library and information science (LIS) are deeply rooted in Enlightenment notions of Western science. A central element of this tradition is the insistence on neutrality as a prerequisite to objectivity. In LIS, neutrality has also become a guiding practice. Alternative epistemological projects challenge Enlightenment-based conceptions and have much to offer research in LIS. Integrating these projects into the conceptual frameworks of LIS research will provide powerful epistemological resources for future work. A metatheoretical framework is reviewed, and the qualitative/ quantitative dichotomy, prevalent in LIS, is critiqued. Standpoint epistemology, as a critique of existing power-knowledge relationships, is discussed as a research strategy that can provide a starting point for reconceptualizing LIS research.1. The author would like to acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions received from Marjorie Rauen, Sandra Harding,John V. RichardsonJr., and the anonymous readers of the earlier submitted version of this article. 2. Doctoral candidate, STANDPOINT EPISTEMOLOGY 361 scrutiny for creating systematic distortions of reality. In particular, the unity of science thesis and the concept of neutrality are two of its more problematic principles.3The unity of science thesis generally holds that there is one world that is knowable through one truth. This one truth, a representation of nature's order, can be discovered by one science capable of understanding it. The one science is capable of being practiced by one particular group, one class of "knowers" who have the requisite expertise. This view of the production of knowledge is closely associated with the notion that the entire process is value neutral. This article will briefly consider two interrelated issues. First, to what extent do these assumptions underlie the research traditions of library and information science (LIS), as well as its institutions and practices? Second, to what extent would alternative epistemological projects, such as standpoint epistemology, enrich research and scholarship within the field of LIS?Following the approach of standpoint epistemology, this article will answer these questions not from the point of view of mainstream LIS research but from its critical margins. Instead of locating this inquiry in the main body of LIS research literature and working out, the article will begin "at the periphery" by reviewing the work of authors who have already taken a particularly critical approach. This discussion will begin by reviewing a 1986 article by Michael Harris that critiques the epistemological foundations of LIS research and practice and will be followed by a discussion of the broad metatheoretical frameworks in which social theory is situated.4 In questioning the usefulness of the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy, this section will lay the theoretical groundwork for the final section that considers standpoint epistemology as an alternative research approach. The Character and Assumptions of LIS ResearchAs ...

Feminist Standpoint Theory: Conceptualization and Utility

“…For instance, it criticizes the privileged status of western science which is tolerated at the expense of local and indigenous knowledge systems that are marginalized. This theory sees neutrality as a problematic principle as it does not challenge the production of systematically distorted results of research (Trosow, 2001). Mostly in natural science and some social sciences of positivistic paradigm, such neutrality is perceived essential for scientific inquiry.…”

“…The obstacle is not adequately conceptualized as a cognitive bias that a social scientist may be vulnerable to; it is more adequately conceptualized as a social phenomenon that is endemic in the world of power relations (Rolin, 2009). Allen (1989) refers to power as the ability of an individual or a group to constrain the choices available to another individual or group (as cited in Trosow, 2001). Rolin (2009) states that there may not always be domination in power relations but they function as instruments of domination to harm other's choices and it mobilizes a complex set of motivations in distorting the relevant evidence.…”