Domain Analysis in Library and Information
Science (LIS)
by Birger Hjørland
Visiting professor Latvia,
October 13, 2006 10.00-12.00 (2 x 45 min)
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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”.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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)
9
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.
10
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 LISprofessionals in 11 points:
11
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,
12
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
13
intelligence.
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.
14
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.
15
Domain-analysis
The 11 points do not have the same status. Basic in the
domain analytic theory are two related approaches:
a) 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).
16
PRODUCERS
Information sources
(informal)
(tabular)
(formal)
Taiks-lectures
Conferences, etc.
(published)
(Unpublished)
PUBLISHERS
EDITORS
Letters to editors
Preprints, etc.
Books
Journals
PRIMARY
SOURCES
Thesis
Reports
-selection
-production
-distribution
ABSTRACTING
& INDEXING
SERVICES
SECONDARY
SOURCES
LIBRARIES
-Analysis & storage
-dissemination
INFORMATION
CENTERS
DATA
CENTERS
Abstract
& Index Journals
Catalogs, Guides
Referral Services, etc.
Quantified
Surveys
Special Bibliographies
Transactions, etc.
Reviews
Syntheses, etc.
USERS
Figure 1. The flow of scientific and technical information
(UNISIST 1971, p. 26)
TERTIARY
SERVICES
-evolution
-compression
-consolidation
17
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).
18
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.
19
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!
20
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
21
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/438900as1.doc
22
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_approa
ches.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).
23
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.
24
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.
25