Domain Analysis in Library and Information Science

1. Domain Analysis in Library and Information Science (LIS)by Birger HjørlandVisiting professor Latvia, October 13, 2006 10.00-12.00 (2 x 45 min)

2. Introduction • There are different names for our field: Information Science (IS), Information Science & Technology, Library and Information Science (LIS) and Documentation. Some terms such as Information Management are also gaining ground. • I shall not today go deeper into this. I refer to Core Concepts in Library & Information Science for further information. What is important is, however, that what I am talking about is the theoretical foundations of our discipline, whatever it is named. I am thus assuming the existence of our field as both a field of research and practice.

3. Introduction • LIS is a divided field in many ways. Library Schools have traditionally mainly educated people for work in public libraries. This application have influenced the field both in the kinds of technical processes and systems used in public libraries and the kind of documents mediated by public libraries. Literature, arts & humanities have been more important than science and drawn LIS closer to the humanities. • Documentation and Information Science, on the other hand, started as concerned with scientific and technological information systems.

4. Introduction • LIS is a combination of library science and information science. As such it has somewhat conflicting views and interests in its inheritance. • Dependent of how you look at your own future work, you may find different contributions in LIS more or less relevant, or too narrow or specialized. • Technological and other developments in society challenges both libraries and related institutions (even Encyclopedia Britannica!). Such developments also challenge LIS as a field of research and study.

5. Introduction • My own research and teaching is, of course, based on my view of our field, its problems and possibilities. I do not believe that we can afford to disregard serious view on the basis and future of our field. We need seriously engaged students, researchers and practitioners to help advancing our field, including considering different theoretical foundations. • The theoretical foundation that I am working from, I have termed “domain analysis”.

6. Subject knowledge • I believe subject knowledge is important. The importance of subject knowledge can hardly be overestimated. I also believe that the library professions relation to subject knowledge is problematic, that the importance of this has been suppressed and often replaced by superficial professional ideologies and theories. • Many high-quality information services, such as MEDLINE, employ subject specialists and computer specialists rather than people educated within LIS.

7. Subject knowledge • What I am trying is NOT to replace LIS-professional with subject specialists (or computer- or management specialists). What I am trying is to base LIS research and education on a more realist philosophy that acknowledge the importance of subject knowledge. • In other words: LIS is a kind of metafield concerned with information seeking, -retrieval, knowledge organization etc. in different fields or domains of knowledge.

8. Subject knowledge • Subject knowledge and LIS-knowledge are not two independent forms of knowledge that can just be combined in an external way. Just as you cannot study Chinese medicine by studying “Chinese” and “medicine” and then combine your knowledge. • And just as you cannot learn English and Danish by study general language theory, you cannot be competent within LIS by just studying “general information science”. It is the other way round: The general theory is based on findings in specific domains.

9. Domain-analysis • "The domain-analytic paradigm" is a theoretical approach to Information Science (IS), which states, that the best way to understand information in IS is to study the knowledge-domains as "discourse communities", which are parts of the society's division of labor. Knowledge organization, -structure, cooperation patterns, language and communication forms, information systems and relevance criteria are reflections of the objects of the work of these communities and of their role in society. The individual person's psychology, knowledge, information needs, and subjective relevance criteria should be seen in this perspective". (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995)

10. Domain-analysis • What then, is the difference between a LIS-professional and an ordinary subject specialist, e.g. in medicine? • Medical training do not incorporate the study of medical documents and databases, medical terminology, medical indexing and so on. • Information scientists may, for example, study the relative usefulness of citation indexing compared to traditional MEDLINE indexing.

11. Domain-analysis • Information specialists may approach the domain from a general knowledge of databases and citation indexes and may explore their usefulness in a specific domain. In other words: information specialist approach a domain in a top-down fashion, whereas domain specialists approach problems of information seeking and knowledge organization in a bottom-up fashion. • In 2002 I formulated the special competencies of LIS-professionals in 11 points:

12. Domain-analysis • (1) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, • (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, • (3) Research on and competencies in indexing and retrieving information in specialities, • (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, • (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometric studies, • (6) Historical studies of information structures and services in domains, • (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains,

13. Domain-analysis • (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions and interests in domains. • (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes) and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, • (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain. • (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence.

14. Domain-analysis • First and foremost do I advocate the view that these 11 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the professional identity is best maintained if those methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The counter-argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the specific information problems in at least one domain.

15. Domain-analysis • It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if one does not know anything about any domain. • I always recommend student to try to keep an interest (e.g. in music or children) and to work with such subjects also from a LIS-perspective. It is important to be able to understand by concrete examples.

16. Domain-analysis • The 11 points do not have the same status. Basic in the domain analytic theory are two related approaches: • The sociological approach: The study of knowledge producers, users and intermediaries, documents, communication channels and institutions in a domain. My point of departure is the UNISIST model. (See Core Concepts in LIS or Fjordback Søndergaard, Andersen & Hjørland, 2003).

18. Domain-analysis • b) The epistemological approach: The “paradigms”, or fundamental views in the domain. (See Epistemological Lifeboat). If you read papers such as Ørom (2003) you will see that the way a subject is classified in a classification system essentially reflects a view of that subject (say Arts).

19. Domain-analysis • It is of course important that YOU become educated I a way, that makes it possible for you to do domain analysis in a domain of your choice. A place to start may be, for example, to examine the most cited authors in a field and examine, why they are the most cited, e.g. by using encyclopedias and other sources to study the domain thus combining qualitative and quantitative methods.

20. Domain-analysis • It is also important that LIS is strengthened as a field of research of teaching. You may try to find other approaches than domain analysis. • The important thing is that people in the field work together to strengthen the field. This is best done by an open debate about the strength and weaknesses of different theoretical positions. Ask questions! Demand answers!

21. References • Abrahamsen, K. T. (2003). Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 144-169. • Core Concepts in Library and Information Science. http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/home.htm • http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/home.htm • Epistemological Lifeboat: http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/home.htm

22. References • Fjordback Søndergaard, T.; Andersen, J. & Hjørland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information. Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 278-320. http://www.db.dk/bh/UNISIST.pdf • Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature,438, 900-901. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html • Supplementary information: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/extref/438900a-s1.doc

23. References • Hjørland, B. (2002). Domain analysis in information science. Eleven approaches - traditional as well as innovative. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 422-462. • http://www.db.dk/bh/publikationer/Filer/JDOC_2002_Eleven_approaches.pdf • or a shorter and up-dated version: • Hjørland, B. (2004). Domain analysis in information science. IN: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 1-7. (Online for subscribers).

24. References • Hjørland, B. & Albrechtsen, H. (1995). Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain-Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6), 400-425. • Hjørland, B. & Hartel, J. (2003). Ontological, Epistemological and Sociological Dimensions of Domains. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 239-245.

25. References • Talja, S. (2005) The domain analytic approach to scholars' information practices. In: Theories of information behavior: A researcher's guide. Ed. K. Fisher, S. Erdelez, L. McKechnie. Medford, NJ. Information Today. (Pp. 123-127). • Ørom, A. (2003). Knowledge Organization in the domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes. Knowledge Organization, 30(3/4), 128-143.