Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post‐War period (Farkas‐Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe‐SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being “interdisciplinary” is to choose a position of weakness because “in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well‐established disciplines.” Cronin (2012) comments that “the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened” for its “epistemic promiscuity.” This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US. Is information science gaining strength by being more interdisciplinary or is “the basic problem for LIS seems at the moment to be a lack of sufficiently strong centripetal forces keeping the field together” as Hjørland (forthcoming) fears. Does IS risk disintegration or dilution if it is being pulled more by centrifugal forces towards neighbouring disciplines rather than by centripetal forces? Is the main problem of IS “epistemological promiscuity”? This panel will discuss how IS in their different geographical or cultural zones has grappled with these issues which are in essence issues of boundaries. In particular, we will discuss the following questions: How information science is affiliated with other disciplines (e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, or interdisciplinary fields) in different regions, countries and institutions represented by the panelists? How is interdisciplinarity perceived in the panelists' institution/country? What are the main theories, if any, that inform research in information science and the formation of research areas in different regions, countries and institutions? Why and how the identity and disciplinarity of information science matter in the context of the work of information science researchers and practitioners?
Information science has often been recognized as an interdisciplinary field. The marriage between librarianship/documentation and computer science was a natural development in the United States in the post‐War period (Farkas‐Conn, 1991; Hahn & Barlow, 2012), while the development of information science in Europe has largely stayed close to the humanities and the social sciences, in particular, in relation to communication and media (Ibekwe‐SanJuan, et al., 2010). For many years, the interdisciplinary nature of information science has been applauded; until recently, we are warned that interdisciplinarinity may be harmful to the identity of the field. Buckland (2012) states that the claim of being “interdisciplinary” is to choose a position of weakness because “in times of economic crisis political power tends to reside in well‐established disciplines.” Cronin (2012) comments that “the field's sense of identity, arguably fragile at the best of times, is likely to be further weakened” for its “epistemic promiscuity.” This international panel aims to discuss the theoretical boundaries of information science in relation to disciplinarity and to the identity of information science with a special reference to the premises, promises and implications of diverging historical and contemporary traditions in different European countries and in the US. Is information science gaining strength by being more interdisciplinary or is “the basic problem for LIS seems at the moment to be a lack of sufficiently strong centripetal forces keeping the field together” as Hjørland (forthcoming) fears. Does IS risk disintegration or dilution if it is being pulled more by centrifugal forces towards neighbouring disciplines rather than by centripetal forces? Is the main problem of IS “epistemological promiscuity”? This panel will discuss how IS in their different geographical or cultural zones has grappled with these issues which are in essence issues of boundaries. In particular, we will discuss the following questions: How information science is affiliated with other disciplines (e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, or interdisciplinary fields) in different regions, countries and institutions represented by the panelists? How is interdisciplinarity perceived in the panelists' institution/country? What are the main theories, if any, that inform research in information science and the formation of research areas in different regions, countries and institutions? Why and how the identity and disciplinarity of information science matter in the context of the work of information science researchers and practitioners?
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to report findings of an action research on students' perceptions of their area of study, Library and Information Science (LIS). The paper aims to demonstrate how an inquiry-based learning (IBL) can help students to gain a more realistic view of their discipline and consequently become more involved in the active learning. Design/methodology/approach -The data were collected in two phases during an academic year. The data collection tools were observation, interview, and questionnaire with open-ended questions. In total, 38 first-year LIS undergraduate students at Tarbiat Mollem University (TMU) in Tehran formed the target group. The study adopted a qualitative approach to seek a deep insight into the case and did not attempt to generalize the results. Findings -At the beginning of the first semester, most of the students did not possess a clear and realistic view of their discipline and they had to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity about their future career. Employing IBL approach in teaching LIS modules was an efficient way to prepare students for deeper involvement with learning activities and it helps them to gain a better understanding of their discipline's scope, which consequently can prepare them for lifelong and independent learning in future.Research limitations/implications -LIS schools can use the suggestions in the paper to provide their students with more chances of enjoying IBL techniques. However, the paper is based on a small group of students in a specific context and the results cannot be easily generalized. Originality/value -The effects of LIS students' perceptions on their study progression have not been addressed before and this paper can enhance our knowledge on this issue.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.