Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

The International

JOURNAL

of

the HUMANITIES

Volume 6, Number 12

The Need for Philosophy in Information Science


Karin McGuirk

www.humanities-journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES http://www.Humanities-Journal.com First published in 2009 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. 2009 (individual papers), the author(s) 2009 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>. ISSN: 1447-9508 Publisher Site: http://www.Humanities-Journal.com THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Need for Philosophy in Information Science


Karin McGuirk, Unisa (University of South Africa), Gauteng Province, South Africa
Abstract: What seems to be clear from how meaning can be configured and represented is that knowledge is strongly influenced by various philosophical attitudes. Erwin Schrdinger stated that knowledge obtained within the confines of a discipline remain isolated in a narrow field. For such knowledge to be of any significance it has to be synthesised with all the rest of knowledge to be able to make a contribution towards answering core philosophical questions. The belief that one discipline on its own can be the only right path to truth needs to be challenged through an awareness of a certain amount of blindness found in assumptions and ideologies, and the danger of hanging onto them due to their familiarity. A narrow approach cultivates a narrow view. An example of the influence of philosophical approaches on a discipline is found in information science. Two broad attitudes towards philosophy in information science serve as examples of how change in the various disciplines affects the humanities and social sciences at large. The two main attitudes are first of all those who recognise the existence of philosophy in information science, and the need for developing it further. A second group is against this opinion arguing that it is unnecessary and not practical, that there is too much of it already. The relationship between philosophy and information science comes a long way. Reuben Peiss identified the affinity between philosophy and the library field as follows: philosophy, as the love of knowledge, and libraries which are repositories of knowledge. Jesse Shera stated that librarians are dealing only incidentally with things but primarily with ideas, concepts, and thoughts. Keywords: Information Science, Philosophy, Knowledge, Interdisciplinary

Introduction
HEN REFERRING TO need it is not a need as in neediness or whether it is necessary to still introduce philosophy, or the philosophical, into the discipline of information science. The need is an existing, constant state which has become invisible. The problem is, therefore, not about finding a philosophy of information science. It is rather about how and why philosophical approaches (including in practice) and developments have affected and informed paradigms, assumptions and theories in information science. It is not about whether philosophy is necessary in information science, or that it is missing, but the need to realise that it is already present. It is about the impact it had and still has in information science itself, and the need to investigate this. The latter statement links to Radford and Budds statement that there is a need for thoughtful, reflexive explorations of the nature of library and information science as a discipline (Radford & Budd 1997:315). [The literature often refers to library and information science, but for purposes of this article it will be referred to as information science which serves as an umbrella term.] According to Vakkari (1992:1-2) discussion on the nature of information science was prominent in the 1970s, but has cooled down before it came to the fore again in the 1990s.

Impact of Philosophy in Information Science


Explorations into the nature of information science involve various areas in which philosophical thought had an impact. Philosophical approaches to theory and in practice can be seen in the philosophy, paradigms and frameworks that guide day-to-day practices of practitioners, users and researchers. Certain approaches added fuel to the tenacious theory versus practice debate. This a pity because, as Vakkari (1992:2) pointed out, two types of research direction seem to have developed, namely a narrow or traditional approach which focused specifically on library and information service institutions, and a broader approach which considers research outside said institutions. This seems to accentuate the close and necessary interaction between theory and practice. It allows investigation into information phenomena without being limited to its place in practice only. Another area of impact is how developments and philosophical thought in the various sciences also informed directions and movements in information science. The relations that exist between information science and other disciplines are always changing (Saracevic 1992:6). This raises the questions of whether information science stands outside this (its social science leg), and whether it can afford to isolate itself from its own history (its broader humanities leg).

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 12, 2009 http://www.Humanities-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9508
Common Ground, Karin McGuirk, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com

44

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, VOLUME 6

Some of the influences that can be identified in information science theory and research range from Logical Positivism, Rationalism, Historicism, Cognitive to Critical Theory, reflecting the impact of philosophical thought from outside the discipline. Due to the complexities (linguistic, cognitive, psychological, social, technical) involved in something like information retrieval, for example, different solutions are required (Bates 1999:1048). Information retrieval was, according to Saracevic (1992:89), crucial to the development of two key components of information science, namely scientific enquiry and professional practice. Information science will thus never be able to settle for a single methodology or philosophy. Our knowledge universe is simply too complex and varied, especially when considering the various ways in which knowledge is represented and the changing role of knowledge in the face of the rapid growth of information technologies (Feyerabend 1988:36; Wersig 1992:201-202). What we also find is that information science researchers often have multidisciplinary backgrounds. This provides a rich, but under-utilised, opportunity for the use and development of theory within information science. The need for philosophy in information science is also accentuated by debates on the relationship of knowledge and theories; knowledge and the sciences; what is science, the study of information; and different world views. These debates are informed from a rich variety of disciplines which are from both the so-called hard and soft sciences of the knowledge spectrum (Boulding 1986:21-22). The role and importance of these areas in information science cannot be discredited, especially since information science claims information (originating from human agency) and the information user (relationship to information as seeker, user, retriever, and creator) as its main foci (Bates 1999:1048).

approaches present in information science research. Such research is often influenced by existing or formal philosophies such as existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, metaphysics, critical theory, semiotics, and cognitive psychology. The continued need for and presence of philosophy and the philosophical for future research in information science, is evident in the following examples of theories or subfields of applied information science (the part of the discipline that prepares future practitioners for the information profession). These are only a few examples and are as follows: classification as one aspect of bibliographic control (representing information as different from knowing, power relations, structure versus content); user studies; readership (language and meaning making), and information technology (produced by human agency, relationship to recorded information). These examples will each be investigated in detail in a later research project that sets out to examine the impact on, and contributions of the philosophical to information science; and how it is activated. Through this it will also attribute to understandings of the role of the human image (such as text image, assumptions regarding human image, power and knowledge) in subject areas such as bibliographic control and documentation. Weissinger (2005:1) warns that two dangers the discipline faces if it continues to refuse to theorise about its practices and avoiding philosophy are intellectual isolation and that others outside the discipline will continue to be the main contributors. This includes a lack of focus on the content aspects of information.

Relationship between Information Science and Philosophy


The impact of philosophy and the philosophical in information science and the resulting relationship can be seen when we look at the different attitudes towards the existence of such a relationship. Certain broad attitudes towards philosophy in information science can be identified. The first attitude is a group who recognises not only the existence of philosophy in information science, but also a need for developing it further. A second group opposes it, seeing it as unnecessary and not practical. There is a third or subgroup who simply feels that there are too much of it already. A fourth identified group does not necessarily state an approach or opinion explicitly. It is often covert and sometimes needs careful scrutiny and interpretation of the context and environment of their particular approach to identify it. These varied attitudes are visible when we consider the historical background of information science, long before it became formally known as information science.

Philosophy and Philosophical Thought


Philosophy as concept is understood here in two ways. The first is as formal philosophy systems. Their appearance in information science can be argued (and often named), but their impact on for example readership, user behaviour, thought development, literacy and so on is clear. The second way is the philosophical, or the existence of philosophical thought in information science. It involves anthropologies, responsibilities and meanings. The concept of the philosophical is the more pervasive and unavoidable influence, but not always immediately identifiable. Bates (1999:1043) refers to this as the invisible substrate, or paradigm below the water line, of information science. The philosophy referred to here is not focused solely on the discipline of philosophy itself, but more so the underlying philosophical

KARIN MCGUIRK

45

The relationship between philosophy and information science comes a long way. For example, Reuben Peiss (who translated Hessels work in 1950) identified the affinity between philosophy and the library field as follows: philosophy, as the love of knowledge, and libraries which are repositories of knowledge (Hessel 1955:viii). Much later Jesse Shera stated that librarians are dealing only incidentally with things but primarily with ideas, concepts, and thoughts (Shera 1983:384). In our contemporary time period we tend to view libraries as being much more than mere repositories, even though that is still what it often does, and place more focus on its social role. Shera seems to supports this by his expressed feeling that the goal in any science should be to know and understand, and not simply to use. This means purpose and process in relation to each other, instead of separated and mutually exclusive. Yet one still finds in information science a very strong tendency towards a focus on mainly utility and structure, much less on understanding and knowledge. The theory versus practice debate thus seems to be well and alive together with an opposition to acknowledgment and discussion of the influence of underlying philosophical attitudes guiding the dominating ideologies and practices of a specific era or institution. These practices and perspectives may have become invisible over time, but it does not mean that they are not present as guiding paradigms and epistemological foundations in practices and theories over time. The following statement by Herold shows how the evolution of an information society (as referred to by Saracevic 1992:6), for example, illustrates this: Our philosophy of information remains implicit while history shows our intimate participation in the emergence of an ostensible epoch (Herold 2001:2). The history of librarianship is essential in tracing how the relationship has changed and morphed over time (such as environmental, cultural, social, even political, increase in human knowledge about the world). Dick (2004:359) argues for the benefits involved in the cooperation between what he refers to as the two research communities, namely the philosophy of information and the history of information. His main concern is the lack of cooperation between them at strategic and intellectual levels. He also found that there is a cyclical pattern to interests in the philosophical aspects of information science (Dick 2004:360) which seems to confirm a need that is constant. Dick, in collaboration with Budd, aims at developing the social epistemology of Jesse Shera and Margaret Egan as a unique foundation for information science (see for example Dick 2002 and Budd 2002a, 2002b). Floridi does not view social epistemology as a foundation, but rather as sharing with informa-

tion science a common ground, represented by the study of information (Floridi 2002:37). His alternative represents a new area of research, namely philosophy of information where information science is approached and seen as an applied philosophy of information. It also involves computational and information-theoretic research. Floridi therefore proposes that the philosophy of information should replace social epistemology as the conceptual framework for information science. His approach seems to have a very strong technology focus, but its benefit is that it does prominently focus on the human-machine relationship. There is a need to re-evaluate the relationship between humans and machines in contemporary society. For example, the implications of a world view that considers humans from a technological viewpoint, instead of the other way around. Even though the approaches by these authors often seem irreconcilable, they are important in the sense that Budd, Dick, Floridi, Herold as well as Radford, recognise the natural relationship that exists between information science and philosophy. These viewpoints are only some examples of what the relationship entails and relates closely to the view that information science is interdisciplinary in nature. Another motivation is that useful knowledge involves much more than what is practical. Useful knowledge includes theoretical, historical, and mathematical knowledge. Through an understanding of the need for philosophy in information science one can form a background to, or contextualise how and why for example, so many varied definitions exist for concepts such as information and knowledge. Erwin Schrdinger stated in 1964 that knowledge obtained within the confines of a particular discipline remains isolated in a narrow field. For such knowledge to be of any value or significance it has to be synthesised with all the rest of knowledge (Schrdinger in Royce 1964:1) to be able to make a contribution towards answering core questions. The danger of provincialism must therefore be avoided, that is, counteracting a belief that one discipline (or for that matter a single philosophical approach) on its own can be the only right path to truth. Such a narrow approach cultivates a narrow view and is especially problematic in a discipline that is in its very nature interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinary studies are more than simply arranging different disciplines or sciences around a theme or subject. It involves the creating of a new kind of object which does not solely belong to any one science or discipline (Barthes in Garber 2001:72). Investigating the role of and need for philosophy in information science offers a unique opportunity to reconsider the interdisciplinary nature of the discipline as it stands in the contemporary scholarly and societal environment (see for example

46

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, VOLUME 6

De Beer 1992). A broad versus narrow philosophy comes to the fore when considering information science as interdisciplinary. It also allows us to enquire into how its historical development contributed, and still contributes, to the underlying assumptions, philosophies and ideologies of the discipline. It serves as a reminder that the concepts of information and knowledge remain a core concern not only in information science, but in many other disciplines. How the terms are conceptualised strongly influences perspectives in the chosen areas of inquiry. An example of an assumption that concerns us here is that science is first and foremost an intellectual activity, an activity of thought (De Beer 2004:343). Reflection is a fundamental intellectual activity in science. This assumption is placed in the context of the new socio-cultural and knowledge landscapes. These landscapes are important to information scientists as it involves ever changing challenges to be faced. It affects their information and knowledge world, making the conceptualisation of the terms information and knowledge in the contemporary environment even more crucial. Such landscapes give a valuable focus to contemporary developments in information science, such as social epi-

stemology and philosophy of information as seen in the work by De Beer (2007), Dick (2002, 2004), and Floridi (2002a, 2002b, 2004).

Conclusion
The way forward is to bring back in focus that information science is about more than applying a few techniques. It is not about having a single philosophy and methodology in information science, but the recognition of the importance of philosophical thought, for example cognitive and methodological variety to solve problems from the social to the technical. There is not a philosophical vacuum to fill. It is about enhancing the philosophical that is present to confront intellectual challenges. Or stated differently, it is not only a matter of an explicit paradigm, but also about intellectual domains with many unarticulated, yet important, elements. There are exciting shifts in the humanities which also impact on the social sciences. To ignore them would be to continue on a path of isolation. This article is only the start of a larger research project which aims to further investigate the need for and role of philosophy in information science, since the aspects covered here represent only a small sample of what is involved.

References
Bates, MJ. 1999. The invisible substrates of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(12):1043-1050. Boulding, KE. 1986. The sciences in the spectrum of human knowledge. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 12(1):21-30. Budd, JM. 2002a. Jesse Shera, social epistemology and praxis. Social Epistemology 16(1):93-98. Budd, JM. 2002b. Jesse Shera, sociologist of knowledge? Library Quarterly 72(4):423-440. De Beer, CS. 1992. Interrelatedness of theories, methods and techniques in the scientific research process. South African Journal for Library and Information Science 60(4):195-203. De Beer, CS. 2004. Towards the idea of information science as an interscience, in ProLISSA 2004. Proceedings of the 3 rd biennial DISSAnet Conference, Pretoria, 28-29 October 2004, edited by TJD Bothma and A Kaniki. Pretoria: Infuse:343-357. De Beer, CS. 2007. An acritical philosophy of information. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science 73(2):180-185. Dick, AL. 2002. Social epistemology, information science and ideology. Social Epistemology 16(1):23-35. Dick, AL. 2004. Philosophy of information without history of information is empty; history of information without philosophy of information is blind, in ProLISSA 2004. Proceedings of the 3 rd biennial DISSAnet Conference, Pretoria, 2829 October 2004, edited by TJD Bothma and A Kaniki. Pretoria: Infuse:359-369. Feyerabend, PK. 1988. Knowledge and the role of theories. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 18(2):157-178. Floridi, L. 2002a. On defining library and information science as applied philosophy of information. Social Epistemology 16(1):37-49. Floridi, L. 2002b. What is the philosophy of information? Metaphilosophy 33(1/2):125-145. Floridi, L. 2004. Open problems in the philosophy of information. Metaphilosophy 35(4):555-582. Garber, M. 2001. Academic instincts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Herold, KR. 2001. Librarianship and the philosophy of information. Library and Practice 3(2):1-15. Available: www.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/lppv3n2.htm [Accessed 17 January 2008]. Hessel, A. 1955. A history of libraries. New Brunswick. N.J: The Scarecrow Press. Information science: from the development of the discipline to social interaction. 1996. Edited by J Olaisen, E MunchPeterson and P Wilson. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Radford, GP & Budd, JM. 1997. We do need a philosophy of library and information science were not confused enough: a response to Zwadlo. Library Quarterly 67(3):315-321. Royce, JR. 1964. The encapsulated man. An interdisciplinary essay on the search for meaning. Princeton, New Jersey: D Van Nostrand Company.

KARIN MCGUIRK

47

Saracevic, T. 1992. Information science: origin, evolution and relations, in Conceptions of library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives, edited by P Vakkari and B Cronin. London: Taylor Graham:527. Shera, JH. 1983. Librarianship and information science, in The study of information: interdisciplinary messages, edited by F Machlup and U Mansfield. New York: Wiley:379-388. Vakkari, P. 1992. Opening the horizon of expectations, in Conceptions of library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives, edited by P Vakkari and B Cronin. London: Taylor Graham:1-4. Weissinger, T. 2005. Information as a value concept: reconciling theory and practice. Library Philosophy and Practice 8(1):1-12. Available: libr.unl.edu:2000/LPP/lppv8n1.htm [Accessed 17 January 2008]. Wersig, G. 1992. Information science and theory: a weaver birds perspective, in Conceptions of library and information science. Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives, edited by P Vakkari and B Cronin. London: Taylor Graham:201-217.

About the Author


Karin McGuirk Currently registered for a Doctoral study (Information Science).Teach in areas of information ethics; philosophy of information; political economy of information; relationship between thinking, culture, information and technology; theory of information science. Special interest in the role of philosophy in information science, relationship between humans and knowledge, post-human and virtual reality. Study background in Archaeology and Museology.

EDITORS
Tom Nairn, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD


Patrick Baert, Cambridge University, UK. David Christian, San Diego State University, California, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA; Common Ground. Joan Copjec, Departments of English and Comparative Literature, and Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, USA. Alice Craven, American University of Paris. Mick Dodson, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Oliver Feltham, American University of Paris. Hafedh Halila, Institut Suprieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunisia. Souad Halila, University of Tunis and Sousse, Tunisia. Hassan Hanafi Hassanien, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Ted Honderich, University College, London. Paul James, Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Moncef Jazzar, Institut Suprieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunisia. Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Eleni Karantzola, Department of Mediterranean Studies, University of the Aegean, Greece. Bill Kent, Monash Centre, Prato, Italy. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. Ayat Labadi, Institut Suprieur des Langues de Tunis, Tunisia. Greg Levine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Hortensia Beatriz Vera Lopez, University of Nottingham, UK. Fethi Mansouri, Institute for Citizenship & Globalization, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Juliet Mitchell, Cambridge University, UK. Nahid Mozaffari, New York, USA. Tom Nairn, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia. Nikos Papastergiadis, The Australian Centre, University of Melbourne, Australia. Robert Pascoe, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Scott Schaffer, Millersville University, USA. Jeffrey T. Schnapp, Stanford Humanities Laboratory, Stanford University, USA. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Columbia University, USA. Bassam Tibi, University of Goettingen, Germany and A.D. White Professor-at-Large, Cornell University, USA. Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Siva Vaidhyanathan, New York University, USA. Chris Ziguras, The Globalism Institute, RMIT University, Australia.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Humanities-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS


International Journal of the Arts in Society Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society. ISSN: 1833-1866 http://www.Arts-Journal.com International Journal of the Book Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information society. ISSN: 1447-9567 http://www.Book-Journal.com Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal Examines the meaning and purpose of design while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874 http://www.Design-Journal.com International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity. ISSN: 1447-9583 http://www.Diversity-Journal.com International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability. ISSN: 1832-2077 http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com Global Studies Journal Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432 http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com International Journal of the Humanities Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559 http://www.Humanities-Journal.com International Journal of the Inclusive Museum Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014 http://www.Museum-Journal.com International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences. ISSN: 1833-1882 http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations. ISSN: 1447-9575 http://www.Management-Journal.com International Journal of Learning Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning. ISSN: 1447-9540 http://www.Learning-Journal.com International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669 http://www.Technology-Journal.com Journal of the World Universities Forum Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation. ISSN 1835-2030 http://www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT subscriptions@commonground.com.au

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi