Theory talk in the library science scholarly literature: An exploratory analysis

Kumasi, Kafi D; Charbonneau, Deborah H.; Walster, Dian

doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2013.02.004

Cited by 38 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At first glance, both off target and cosmeticising may seem crude titles for categories; however, we feel a need to articulate the urgent belief that when concepts and theories are evoked, they ought to be used in such a way that the theory can be traced through stringent argument to an established understanding or, alternatively, that the authors are offering a novel interpretation. Theory dropping and some attempts at theory conversation as defined by Kumasi et al could be seen in the two categories off target and cosmeticising . Our findings echo those of O′Brien and Battista's recently published scoping review, which identified superficial theory use or theory dropping in a large number of articles .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Theory is used, however, in different ways. Kumasi et al have noted that theory spans across a continuum, where some authors merely drop theory into texts and others use theory to engage in discussion with a community, and others still use theory in order to apply, test or generate new ideas. A concern addressed specifically in the medical education research context is that theories are used inconsistently and inexplicitly …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our dataset also contained examples in which CoP was used in all three ways 39,40. Returning to Kumasi et al11 we could determine theory usage along the theory use continuum, from theory dropping to theory conversation and to theory application and generation, where framing, lensing and transferring align with theory conversation, and application and generation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

You say it, we say it, but how do we use it? Communities of practice: A critical analysis

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives As educational theories are increasingly used in medical education research there are concerns over how these theories are used, how well they are presented and what the authors intend. Communities of practice (CoP) is one example of an often‐used theory and conceptual framework. This paper presents a critical analysis of how CoP theory is used in medical education research. Methods A critical literature analysis was undertaken of articles published between 1998 and 2018 in eight internationally recognised medical education journals. From a total of 541 articles, 80 articles met the inclusion criteria and were analysed and mapped according to various patterns of use. Results We discerned five categories of use, two misleading and cosmetic, off target and cosmeticising, and three functional, framing, lensing and transferring. A considerable number of articles either misrepresented the point of communities of practice or used it in a cosmetic fashion. The remainder used the theory to frame an ongoing study in relation to other work, as a lens through which to design the study and collect or analyse data, or as a way of discussing or demonstrating the transferability of the findings. Conclusions We conclude that almost half of the reviewed articles did not offer a functional and rigorous definition of what is meant by CoP; instead, they used it in a potentially misleading or cosmetic manner. This study therefore calls on editors, reviewers and authors alike to increase clarity and quality in the application of CoP theory in medical education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

You say it, we say it, but how do we use it? Communities of practice: A critical analysis

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent decades, there have been a number of studies conducted to evaluate research productivity in subject areas such as physics, medical science, biological science, and library and information science (Michalopoulas & Falagas, 2005;Kumasi, Charbonneau, & Walster, 2013;Rahman & Fukui, 2003;Uzun, Menard, & Özel, 1993). Overall, the United States and Western Europe have made remarkable contributions to global research, although their comparative productivity varies across different fields of research (Sapa, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research productivity of library scholars

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore, by a quantitative analysis, growth rates of, and trends in, global publications in the field of library and information science (LIS) produced by library science professionals. Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was used in this paper. Journal Citation Reports 2010 was the major source for selecting 40 LIS core journals. A bibliometric analysis was conducted. Visualization and mapping software was utilized to present a picture of the growth in and trends relating to LIS publications. Findings – A total of 18,371 research articles were published from 2003 to 2012. A significant growth rate (11.37 per cent) was found in 2009. Self-citation tendencies have been increasing, with an average rate of 38.56 per cent. Of all publication types, “article” was the most popular among LIS researchers. China has contributed remarkably in terms of collaborative publications. Practical implications – The present study could be helpful for library professionals, subject specialists and policy makers. These findings may encourage library professionals to integrate and monitor library functions through bibliometric analysis. Originality/value – This paper identifies growth and trends in publications by LIS researchers through use of bibliometrics.

show abstract

“…In some cases components are named, such as a theory that is mentioned in the literature review, but then that theory is not revisited, explained or considered anywhere else throughout the research report (see Kumasi, Charbonneau, & Walster, 2014 for a more extensive discussion). In this case the naming may become confusing and create an unclear understanding of what type of research is being conducted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding and Reading Reports of Research: How Academic Librarians Can Help Students Be More Successful

Walster

Charbonneau

Kumasi

2016

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory talk in the library science scholarly literature: An exploratory analysis

Cited by 38 publications

References 19 publications

You say it, we say it, but how do we use it? Communities of practice: A critical analysis

You say it, we say it, but how do we use it? Communities of practice: A critical analysis

Research productivity of library scholars

Finding and Reading Reports of Research: How Academic Librarians Can Help Students Be More Successful

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About